- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:46:00 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. Our next telcon will be December 14. That will be our last telcon of 2011. The following telcon will be 2012 January 11. Status and open actions ======================= xml-stylesheet and HTML5 ------------------------ Henry and Paul met with Anne van Kesteren at the f2f. Hnery took an action to file a bug about xml-stylesheet handling. Done: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14689 Henry has done a lot more testing and filing of results to date. One edge issue is having a spec for what browsers should do when an XML document has a SS PI pointing to a CSS stylesheet. Henry's tests indicate most browsers handle this pretty well, but there is nothing in the HTML5 spec about this. Do we want something in there about this? ACTION to Liam: Send pointers to examples of support for styling XML with CSS (either tools or web pages). HT thinks the status quo is generally correct, we just need to make sure it is spec-ed properly in the HTML5 spec. Henry's tests are at http://www.w3.org/XML/2011/11/ssTests/ You need to look at the README and README2 files there. issues with the Polyglot draft ------------------------------ Henry sent email with various potential issues at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Nov/0037 We should discuss each point and decide what we think. Extending XInclude ------------------ Henry, Paul, Liam, Murray discussed this at the f2f (see minutes). Those present generally liked the idea of extending xinclude to copy attributes on the xinclude element down to the root included element, but we didn't agree on details. Some issues include: 1. exactly what attributes to copy? Henry and Liam preferred to copy un-prefixed attributes (except those in the xinclude spec) too. Norm worries what this would mean if we add another attribute in the XInclude spec? Henry wants to be able to have unprefixed attributes copied onto the root included element. Henry: we could add a new "copy me without prefix" namespace to xinclude. Norm doesn't need that, but could live with it. 2. what to do about attribute conflict (error or one or the other wins). 3. whether we should "log" additions (e.g., via an attribute that says what attributes were added). At first, we didn't think this was much of a concern, but then we realized perhaps it was something worth considering. 4. whether we should have some way for targets to say whether they can be xincluded and/or, when included, have attributes added. We had a discussion about xinclude being like img/@src rather than a/@href in that xincluding things is basically "stealing" them. Yes, it's worth thinking about this a bit, but it seems like this issue exists already elsewhere, and it may not make sense to worry about this in XInclude. We aren't quite ready to start drafting Xinclude 1.1, but discussion will continue. Liam tells us that it's okay to work on requirements for an XInclude 1.1, but before publishing a FPWD, we'll need a charter revision. He doesn't anticipate any problems, provided there's a realistic schedule for getting to Rec. LEIRIs and new editions ----------------------- We continue to wait to see what might happen with IRIbis. XML 1.0 6th Edition and XML 1.1 3rd Edition ------------------------------------------- ACTION to John: Update the XML sources for XML 1.0 and 1.1 to reflect any errata and the LEIRI reference. On hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis. XInclude 3rd Edition -------------------- ACTION to Paul: Update the XML sources for Xinclude to reflect any errata and the LEIRI reference. On hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis. XInclude @xpointer when parse="text" ------------------------------------ Henry, Paul, Liam, Murray discussed this at the f2f (see minutes). Previous email discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Oct/thread.ht ml#msg46 We seem to have three choices: 1. allow use of the @xpointer attribute when parse=text 2. add a new "@textptr" attribute to use when parse=text 3. add a new "@fragid" attribute to use in all cases and possibly deprecate the @xpointer attribute The assembled group was generally positive about working on a solution of some sort. It felt like the "right" solution if we could time-travel backwards would be #3, the easiest spec change was to #2, though some of us felt that #1 was the best choice at the present. Paul restarted the email discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Nov/thread.ht ml#msg12
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 17:46:52 UTC