XML Core WG Status and Open Action as of 2007 February 19

The XML Core WG telcons are every other week.

Our next telcon will be February 28.

Status and open actions
We have been asked to review XForms 1.1 which is going to 
Last Call soon.

The current working draft dated 12 Feb 2007 appears at 

A diff-marked version showing the changes for 1.1 relative to 
XForms 1.0 Second Edition appears here: 

ACTION to John:  Review XForms 1.1 for us. 


The XML CG has asked that XML Core review:
Widgets 1.0 Requirements
Widgets 1.0

Any volunteers?

The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at

Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note 
has been published at

Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment 
WG Note has been published at

What is the relationship between C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1?

We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1.
Philippe would like us to make this clear in the C14N 1.1 spec.

Namespaces 1.1 does allow the undeclaring of a namespace prefix
which might cause problems for C14N.  But then we decided there
might already be problems with C14N and NS 1.0 (not preserving
prefixes in some cases--what JohnC calls qname-correctness).

JohnC suggests:  If a namespace is declared in the input, then 
it must be declared in the output.

John points out that it's not clear how you generate an xpath 1.0 
model for an XML 1.1 document.

ACTION to JohnC:  Send email to the list summarizing the issue
and your suggested solution.

XML Base
The (Second Edition) PER has been published at

Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 

Norm suggests we provide a more crisp defn of XML Resource 
Identifier and say processors "should" check it but don't
have to.

ACTION to Norm:  Draft a better definition of XML Resource

The XLink CR was published at

The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at

Norm posted a DoC at

Paul wrote a SECOND draft PR request at

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
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

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
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.

We got a comment about the XInclude spec at

Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at

Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at

We had CONSENSUS to make these editorial errata.

ACTION to Daniel:  Process these as (editorial) errata to the
latest XInclude spec.

Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 14:25:29 UTC