W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2014 November 12

From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:12:20 -0600
Message-ID: <546394F4.3070101@paulgrosso.name>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org

Liam xx:07

[5 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Loren, proxy to the chair
Daniel, proxy to the chair
Mohamed, proxy to the chair

Absent organizations
Greatlinkup (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
John Cowan
Red Hat (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)

Our next telcon is scheduled for November 26.

> 1. Accepting the minutes from the last telcon [3] and
>   the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
>   or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).


> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 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.

ACTION to John and Henry continued.

> ----
> 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.

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 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 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,
> but that make take help from Henry or Michael. Loren
> will try to contact Michael again.
> We will need a diff (or list of changes) and a test suite.
> Loren says the diff is already available.
> We need to see if any of the changes are normative.
> It appears that none of the changes require a chance
> in the test suite.
> David has produced a table outlining his thoughts on the
> normativity of the various changes at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Oct/0003
> though the formatting there doesn't appear to work well.
> You can view the table better at
> https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2014/xschema11.html
> ACTION to David and Liam:  Discuss the changes we are
> making to the XML Schema spec and determine what our
> next step should be in terms of pushing this through
> to a new edition.

ACTION to David and Liam continued.

> ACTION to Loren:  Check that he can run the build.

ACTION to Loren continued.

> Potential Erratum to Namespaces
> -------------------------------
> 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.

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 3.  XML Test Suite.
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
> 4. LEIRIs--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri
> We have planned to issue the following spec editions referencing
> LEIRIs (and any outstanding errata):
> * XML 1.0 6th Edition (John to be editor)
> * XML 1.1 3rd Edition (John to be editor)
> * XInclude 3rd Edition (Paul to be editor)
> but all this is on hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis.
> 5.  XInclude 1.1--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
> 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.
> Norm raised an issue at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Sep/0004
> pointing out a problem copying the xml:base attribute
> when the xi:xinclude element itself has an xml:base attribute.
> After WG discussion, we decided we need to be clearer in general
> about how xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:base are handled when they occur
> on the xi:include element including how they get their semantics.
> ACTION to Norm:  Write a proposal for how to address this problem.

Norm wrote email with a couple proposals at

We had CONSENSUS among those on the call for Norm to write up
the following change to the latest XInclude 1.1 CR:

In section 3.1 xi:include Element, add a "set-xml-id" attribute
to the xi:include element with semantics appropriate for point 2

In section 4.3 Attribute Copying when processing XML:

1.  Say that attributes in the xml namespace on the xi:include
element are not copied.

2.  Say that, if the xi:include element has its set-xml-id
attribute specified, every top-level included item that is an
element information item will have its xml:id attribute's value
set to the value of the set-xml-id attribute.

[Paul wonders what should be done in the case of set-xml-id="".
Do we (a) ignore such a specification, (b) set xml:id="", or
(c) say this means we would remove any xml:id specification
on the top-level included items.]

ACTION to Loren, Mohamed, David, Daniel, John:  Speak up if
you have any objections to the above plan for XInclude 1.1.

> 6. MicroXML
> MicroXML is not in our new charter, but we can discuss it.
> We will leave this as an ongoing item in our standing agenda.
> paul
> [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core
> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#tasks
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Oct/0015
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 17:12:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:51 UTC