XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2011 November 8

The XML Core WG telcons are every other week.

Our next telcon will be November 16.

The minutes from the XML Core f2f at last week's TPAC are at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Nov/0004

Status and open actions
=======================

xml-stylesheet and HTML5
------------------------
Henry and Paul met with Anne van Kesteren at the f2f
(see minutes).

Hnery took an action to file a bug about xml-stylesheet
handling.  Done:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14689

HT: I have an *xhtml* doc with an xml-stylesheet PI with type=text/xsl.
Does the HTML5 specs cover this case? 

ACTION to Henry: Consider asking the above question of the HTML5 WG
after doing some research to determine what does currently happen.

HT: Section 5.5.3 doesn't appear to distinguish between xhtml and 
non-xhtml xml documents.  The spec does not make it obvious what 
should happen for non-xhtml xml documents.

ACTION to Henry:  Think about the above statement and determine
if we need to file a bug report or ask a question about it.


Namespace well-formed external parsed entities
----------------------------------------------
Liam, Henry, and Paul discussed this at the f2f (see minutes).

Rather than figure out how to pass in namespace declarations
so that all fragments could be parsed, XQuery decided to restrict
the usability of fn:parse-xml-fragment to just self-contained
fragments, thereby also avoiding the need to define what it means
for an external parsed entity to be namespace well-formed.

Therefore there is nothing for XML Core to do at this time.

The next time we do a new edition of the Namespace spec, we should
consider defining a version of namespace well-formedness for
external parsed entities (production 78 in the XML spec).


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.

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).

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.

We will continue this discussion in the WG.


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.

We will continue this discussion in the WG.

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 15:35:34 UTC