- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:32:04 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. Our next telcon will be February 14. Status and open actions ======================= XBL2 Review ----------- Norm reviewed this at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0018 The second Last Call was announced: > The second Last Call for XBL2 has been published: > > XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0 > W3C Working Draft 17 January 2007 > Editor: Ian Hickson > > This Version: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xbl-20070117/ > Latest Version: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/ > > The comment period ends 9 February 2007. All comments should be > send to public-appformats mail list. ACTION to Norm: Ensure your comments are still relevant, then plan to send in your comments on Feb 9th barring any XML Core member comments to the contrary. attribute canonicalization -------------------------- Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020 and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019 We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific. ACTION to Norm: Reply to Eric with this and see if we've misunderstood something. C14N ---- The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220 Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-issues-20061220/ Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment WG Note has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSig-usage-20061220/ XML Base -------- The (Second Edition) PER has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ Henry reported some feedback at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0010 Henry suggested the basis of a response at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0017 Henry will need to discuss this objection with the Director, indicating that the WG feels it's too late to make changes now, that there is no serious problem, but that we will consider in the future doing something to improve the organization of this cross reference, perhaps defining XML Resource Identifier in an RFC or something. ACTION to Henry: Represent the WG's position in a conversation with the Director. ACTION to Henry: Respond (privately, or as appropriate) to the commentor. XLink ----- The XLink CR was published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ Norm posted a DoC at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html ACTION to Norm: Follow up in email on: XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky ACTION to Norm: Post to the WG mailing list something to show that any valid XLink 1.1 document can be programmatically converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0 document. ACTION to Norm: Provide a few more tests for the test suite. Paul wrote a SECOND draft PR request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0059 ACTION to Norm: Complete resolution of DoC. ACTION to WG (need volunteer): Update the Implementation Report. ACTION to Norm: Produce PR-ready draft. ACTION to Norm: Produce diff/review version. XML 1.0/1.1 ----------- ACTION to Francois: Update the PE document per previous telcons' decisions. On PE 157, John sent email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036 with his suggested response and a question for the WG: > Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8, > etc. etc. to 4.3.3? If so, we might as well remove "We consider the > first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious. We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM. We have decided that John's email should be sent to the commentor as a response (done, see [11]), and that the only change resulting from this PE are some editorial changes as outlined in John's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0056 ACTION to Francois: Update the PE document with John's editorial changes as the proposed resolution to PE 157. [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006OctDec/0010 ---- John sent email about a new PE related to UTF-8 BOM at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0067 proposing the following language as a new paragraph in 4.3.3 for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1: If the replacement text of an external entity is to begin with the character U+FEFF, and no text declaration is present, then a Byte Order Mark MUST be present, whether the entity is encoded in UTF-8 or UTF-16. ACTION to Francois: Update the PE document with this PE and suggested resolution. XInclude -------- We got a comment about the XInclude spec at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0013 Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0023 Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0022 We had CONSENSUS to make these editorial errata, so barring objections soon: ACTION to Daniel: Process these as (editorial) errata to the latest XInclude spec.
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 17:32:48 UTC