XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2014 December 29

The XML Core WG telcons are scheduled for every other week.

Our next telcon is scheduled for 2015 January 7.


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

XML Potential Errata
--------------------
Comment that “or by the Byte Order Mark” is lacking in section 4.3.3:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2013OctDec/0002

Comment that an entity cannot “begin” with a BOM as suggested in section 
4.3.3:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2013OctDec/0003

ACTION to John and Henry: Review and comment on the above two comments
on the discussion of BOMs in section 4.3.3 of the XML spec.

---

Comment about documents with an "empty DTD":
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Jan/thread#msg8
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/

Henry suggests we could probably make the XML spec clearer here;
see also his comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/0004

Paul sent the WG response at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/0005
and there was more back from the commentor at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/

ACTION to Henry: Read the post-February 6 email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/
and let us know what you think we should do.

---

CMSMcQ raised a potential erratum against Namespaces at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2014Sep/0000
with WG discussion started at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Sep/0019

He says that our latest wording in the definition of 'namespace name'
(section 2.1) appears to say that an element with no namespace binding
in scope is in no namespace as opposed to saying its namespace is
unknown (thereby leaving the possibility that its namespace
information may be determined by some other methods).

Norm, Paul, and Henry posted some thoughts on this, and none
of us feel that the current wording is necessarily bad enough
to be worth any change. In particular, Norm doesn't agree with
what Michael thinks should be the case. Henry points out that
HTML5 does "make use of" defining namespaces without the
namespace spec mechanism.

Henry had some more (private) exchanges with Michael, and
Henry will summarize the discussion for the WG.

ACTION to Henry: Summarize and provide current status of
the discussion of this namespace potential erratum.

---

Question about normalization checking in XML 1.1
------------------------------------------------
John Cowan forwarded an email for us to consider at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Dec/0026
which I've also forwarded to the xml-editor list at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014OctDec/0000
for official/archive purposes.


Submitting XML Schema 1.1 to ISO
--------------------------------
See also
https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-schema

We have decided we will first publish XML Schema 1.1 2E (with
approved errata). After that, we would send XML Schema 1.1 2E
(only) to ISO.

Loren has offered to do the editorial duties, and David
talked to CMSMCQ about getting some more help in the details.

ACTION to Loren and David: Produce a publication-ready version
of XML Schema 1.1 2E incorporating the approved errata.

It looks like there are 3 bugs for Structures, none for Datatypes,
but after checking with Michael, he found
https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.errata-2012.html
which shows 8 errata items whereas bugzilla shows only 3.

We discussed
https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.errata-2012.html

Henry figures we can just publish this document.

Loren believes the latest document includes everything,
so the next step is to push it through the tool chain.

We will need a diff (or list of changes) and a test suite.
Loren says the diff is already available.

We needed to consider whether any of the changes are normative
and/or require a change to the test suite.  After some discussion,
we decided we should just create a PER.

ACTION to Loren:  Create the PER, i.e., XML Schema 1.1 Second Edition,
and post (e.g., at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2014/12/xschema11.html)
for the WG to review (talk to Paul if you need help so posting).

XInclude 1.1
------------
On 2012 February 14, we published
XInclude 1.1 Requirement and Use Cases
http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude-11-requirements/

On 9 October 2012, we published our FPWD of XInclude 1.1 at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/WD-xinclude-11-20121009/

On 15 January 2013, we published our (first) Last Call of
XInclude 1.1 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-xinclude-11-20130115/
and Paul sent the transition announcement at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Jan/0012
(also cc-ing the chairs mailing list).

On 2013 October 8, we published the XInclude 1.1 CR at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-xinclude-11-20131008/

Norm reports that Michael Kay's code just accesses Xerces code,
so Norm might have to work with Xerces.

DV reports that he is busy and so cannot commit to a deadline
for adding XInclude 1.1 support to libxml.

ACTION to Norm:  Continue to work toward getting XInclude 1.1
implementations and document them in our implementation report.

Note also the desire for another test case for the XInclude test suite per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Apr/0000

Norm may see if he knows anyone still working on Xerces.

Norm is planning to write a SAX filter to implement XInclude 1.1.
He believes this will lead to a way for using XInclude 1.1 with
Saxon's XSLT processor and most any other Java based tool.

Jirka has implemented a subset of an XInclude processor
in XSLT; it deals mainly with the new copy-attributes feature.

We have published (another) Last Call 2014 December 16 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-xinclude-11-20141216/

The Last Call period ends January 17.  Assuming no substantive
comments, we should plan to issue a (short) CR soon thereafter.