- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:57:07 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. Our next telcon will be March 28. Status and open actions ======================= The XML CG has asked that XML Core review: Widgets 1.0 Requirements http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209/ and Widgets 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ ACTION to Norm: Review the draft. 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/ 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. The XPath 1.0 data model (which C14N uses) allows for undeclaring namespaces, but this can only be serialized using NS 1.1. But Konrad says C14N inherits the namespaces-in-scope from its ancestors. We may need to change wording in C14N 1.1 about how namespaces are canonicalized. ACTION to Konrad, Richard: Post thoughts on this to the email list. Richard did post something at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0032 XML Base -------- The (Second Edition) PER has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ It's now waiting for us to say what should happen next--whether we want a Director's call now or not. Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier. Norm sent a first draft at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0012 So the plan is to get this to an RFC and then reference it from XML Base (which we can then take to REC) and others. 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 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. HOWEVER, the actions here are pending until we get the X.R.I. RFC since we plan to reference it from XLink. 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. ACTION to Daniel: Process these as (editorial) errata to the latest XInclude spec.
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 14:01:33 UTC