- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:57:39 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. Our next telcon will be January 17. Status and open actions ======================= XBL2 Review ----------- http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type =text/html Editor's copy (more up to date) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/ Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated) fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012 ACTION to Norm: Review this WD. 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/ 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.
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 18:57:48 UTC