XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2014 October 20

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

However, our next telcon is scheduled for October 29 but that
is in the middle of the TPAC week so we have CANCELLED it.

Therefore, our next telcon is scheduled for November 12.


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.


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,
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 Loren:  Check that he can run the build.

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.

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.