XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2014 January 27

The XML Core WG telcons are every other week.

Our next telcon will be February 5.


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:  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

ACTION to Paul:  Draft a response and post it to the XML Core
mailing list. If no objections within a couple days, post to
the commentor and xml-editor list.


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.
It looks like there are 3 bugs for Structures, none for Datatypes,
but check with Michael.

Henry might be able to help with the tool chain needed to
publish XML Schema 1.1.

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


XML Media types (3023bis)
-------------------------
Latest IETF draft is -06 dated December 5 at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-06.html

Subsequently, there was further discussion of Appendix B and how
to reference it; see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Nov/thread#msg21

Henry indicates the IETF review has shown considerable
interest in adding something along the following lines:

  Going forward, XML producers SHOULD use UTF-8 exclusively
  and it SHOULDN'T have any BOM. For compatibility with existing
  implementations, the following processing rules are given....

John is concerned that this is put on *producers* rather
than transmitters. He says it's perfectly reasonable for
producers to produce other encodings locally.

Henry replies that (and this could/should be made clearer)
"XML producers" _means_ "XML producers of entities for
delivery by MIME-compliant means".

ACTION to Henry:  Edit 3023bis to suggest that XML producers
of entities for delivery by MIME-compliant means SHOULD always
produce BOM-less UTF-8.

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.