W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2007

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2007 November 12

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:55:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302096290B0@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
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:


C14N 1.1:

XML 1.0 5th Edition:

Status and open actions

C14N 1.1
The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at

We had productive discussions during our f2f--see:

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.

The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at

The most recent editor's draft is at

Martin's latest IRI draft (defining LEIRIs in section 7) is at 

We've exchanged some email with Martin about some details,  see
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

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:

Richard reports that the 2005 issue has been resolved in the latest

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
and we have gotten very little response--see

We had some discussion at our f2f--see

We appear to have unofficial agreement by most implementors
to consider making this change if it goes through the W3C

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?

Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 15:59:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:35 UTC