Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 May 9

Some of my actions...

> XML clarification
> -----------------
> Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006
> Richard replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0007
> 
> Henry doesn't see why Richard's explanation makes the problem go
> away.  Glenn explains it, but Henry points out that more explanation
> would be useful--at least in the test, and maybe in the spec.
> 
> Glenn suggested putting something in the table near the end (4.4)
> if we put anything in the spec.
> 
> Henry suggests adding an example such as this case to Appendix D
> (in XML 1.0 4th Ed).
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Suggest some wording/example to add to the spec
> that covers the "< in attribute value" issue (actually, internal 
> entity in attributes).

If we copy what was in the e-mail exchange and expand upon it somewhat
we get the following proposed addition to Appendix D:

In the following example

<!DOCTYPE foo [
  <!ENTITY x "&lt;">
]>
<foo attr="&x;"/>

The replacement text of x is the four characters "&lt;" because 
referrences
to general entities in entity values are bypassed [4.4.7].  The 
replacement
text of lt is the five characters "&#60;" [4.6]. Since neither of these
contains a less-than character the result is well-formed.

If the definition of x had been

  <!ENTITY x "&#60;">

then the document would not have been well-formed, because the replacement
text of x would be the single character "<" which is not permitted in
attribute values.


> We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1.
> Philippe LeH would like us to make the relationship between
> C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1 clear in the C14N 1.1 spec.
> 
> Paul asks why we are trying to define the relationship
> of C14N 1.1 with XML 1.1 when C14N 1.0 doesn't have a
> relationship with XML 1.1, and all we were trying to do
> is fix the problem with xml:id.  The WG isn't eager to 
> try to solve these other issues in C14N 1.1.
> 
> We will plan to put some sort of non-normative note into 
> the CR draft of the C14N 1.1 spec about its relationship 
> (or lack thereof) to XML 1.1.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Propose some wording.

I've added the following to the Abstract and Introduction sections as 
suggested at [5].

"Canonical XML 1.1 is applicable to XML 1.0 and defined in terms of the
 XPath 1.0 data model. It is not defined for XML 1.1."

> The LC ended April 30.  We should take it to CR in May.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Check the comments list.

Actionable comments are at:

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2006Dec/0001.html 
(maybe)
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2006Dec/0004.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2006Dec/0006.html
[4] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007Jan/0001.html
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007May/0000.html

> ACTION to Glenn:  Produce a CR draft

Coming soon.

Regards,
Glenn