- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:14:36 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. However, we have cancelled the telcon of December 26. Our next telcon will be 2012 January 11. Status and open actions ======================= xml-stylesheet and HTML5 ------------------------ 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. ACTION to Henry: File a bug against the HTML5 spec saying that it should support styling XML with CSS. The CSS2 spec says something about styling XML with CSS. Henry also notes http://www.w3.org/Style/styling-XML.en.html. 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. ACTION to Norm: Draft an XInclude 1.1 requirements document. (See also the final item below for the "@textptr" requirement.) ACTION to Norm: Produce the initial XInclude 1.1 editor's draft. If we want to produce an XInclude 1.1, we will need an amended charter as indicated by Ian at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Dec/0014 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 We are leaning toward choice #2 which Norm will include in the XInclude 1.1 requirements document and initial draft.
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 23:45:32 UTC