Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2014 September 17

Attendees
---------
   Norm
   Paul
   Liam
   Henry

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

Regrets
-------
Jirka, proxy to the chair
Loren, proxy to the chair
David
Daniel, proxy to the chair
Mohamed, proxy to the chair


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

Our next telcon is scheduled for October 1.



> 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).
>

Accepted.


>
> 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.
>
> ACTION to Loren and David:  Check if any changes are normative
> and/or would require a change to the test suite (and that aren't
> already supported by implementations).
>
> ACTION to Loren:  Check that he can run the build.
>

ACTIONs to Loren and David 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 about xml:base at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Sep/0004
> wherein he concluded:
>
>   We could say that xml:base and xml:lang aren't
>   copied because there are separate controls for them.
>
>   Another option is to say that if xml:base is copied,
>   the absolute base URI is used as the attribute's value.
> There was some follow up discussion on the list.
>

Norm points out this whole problem only occurs when there
is an explicit xml:base attribute on the xi:include element.


Two other options:

We could say not to copy anything in the xml space.

[People were not enthusiatic about this one at first,
though it did resurface briefly again.]

We could say that having xml:base copied when base URI
fixup is turned off may give you undesired results, so
don't do that.

We could just add a note to this effect.

But this would make something that is valid with an xinclude 1.0
processor invalid with a 1.1 processor, and we want to
avoid backwards incompatible behavior.

Norm leans toward saying that one has to make the xml:base
attribute absolute before copying it.

Henry asks how this differs from just making base URI fixup
mandatory.

Then Henry points out that we have base URI's sort of going
both ways: from the includer to the included and vice versa.

We need to be clearer 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.


>
> 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/2014Jun/0006
>
>
>