- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:55:32 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. Our next telcon will be November 21. Minutes from our f2f are at: LEIRIs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0016 C14N 1.1: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0028 XML 1.0 5th Edition: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0031 Status and open actions ======================= C14N 1.1 -------- The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621 We had productive discussions during our f2f--see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0028 We are planning to drop Appendix A and augment the prose in 2.4. Frederick will send updated wording suggestions for this section by mid-week. Glenn will incorporate into the draft. ACTION to Frederick: Update the redline version with our latest decisions and resend to the groups by Nov 14. ACTION to Glenn: Produce a new editor's draft reflecting the changes suggested in Frederick's updated redline. We noticed a problem in the merging process where 'Base' argument to join-uris ends with "..". ACTION to Thomas and Frederick: Get implementors to run this new test case and report the results. LEIRIs ------ The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01.txt The most recent editor's draft is at http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/04/hrri/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01c.html Martin's latest IRI draft (defining LEIRIs in section 7) is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt We've exchanged some email with Martin about some details, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0016 but in general it looks like we'll be happy with the definition of LEIRIs in the new IRI RFC. There are a few outstanding issues; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0034 Scheduling for the revised IRI RFC is still unclear. XML 1.0/1.1 ----------- Henry/Richard discussed the test suite issues raised by Frans Englich: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ Richard reports that the 2005 issue has been resolved in the latest draft. The one from 2006, character references with numbers with dozens of digits, may not be. ACTION: Richard to construct a test case for these issues. XML 1.1 deployment -> XML 1.0 5th Edition ----------------------------------------- I have sent out email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2007OctDec/0021 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007OctDec/0059 and we have gotten very little response--see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-blueberry-comments/2007Oct/ We had some discussion at our f2f--see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0031 We appear to have unofficial agreement by most implementors to consider making this change if it goes through the W3C process. Paul talked to Ian Jacobs who suggested the best way to make this change is to issue an XML 1.0 5th Edition PER with a relatively long review period. (Note, by doing so, we don't really open the discussion of whether this is an erratum or not, so the new title for this discussion is "XML 1.0 5th Edition".) Whether we allow XML 1.0 processors to accept documents labelled version="1.1" is separate from the name char issue, and we don't know if we are going to try to do that in this erratum too. Thoughts? We asked if unlabelled documents would remain 1.0 or not. MSM would like to say an unlabelled document can be attempted to be processed by any processor whereas right now an unlabelled document can only be a 1.0 document (since the XML declaration is required by XML 1.1). Thoughts? paul
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 15:59:08 UTC