Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2015 February 4

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

[3 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------
Liam
David, proxy to the chair
Daniel, proxy to the chair
Mohamed, proxy to the chair


Absent organizations
--------------------
Greatlinkup
NACS (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
John Cowan
Jirka Kosek
W3C (with regrets)
Red Hat (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)



Our next telcon is scheduled for 2015 February 18.

Norm gives regrets, Paul is at risk, so we may be
cancelling this call.  Watch the email (on the 16th
I will either send out an agenda or a status).


> 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.

> ----
>
> 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.
>
> Paul wrote some comments in email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Dec/0028
>
> Henry checked with Richard who agrees it's a bug, though how
> to fix it isn't obvious. Probably the only candidates for not
> being normalized are (internal and external) doctypes per email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2015Jan/0004

ACTION to Norm and Henry: Review the email about normalization checking
in XML 1.1 and suggest an appropriate corrigendum.


>
> ----
>
> 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. 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.
>
> We will need a diff (or list of changes).
> 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).
>

ACTION to Loren continued.

>
> 4.  XML Test Suite.
>
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
>
>
> 5. 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.
>
>
> 6.  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.
>
> 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 ended January 17.  There were no comments.
>
> ACTION to Paul:  Work with Liam and Norm to produce a draft CR
> of XInclude 1.1 that the WG can approve for publication.
>

The WG had CONSENSUS to take XInclude 1.1 to CR.

ACTION to Paul (to draft a new SOTD) continued.

ACTION to Norm (with Paul's SOTD) to create the pub-ready CR.


> 7. 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/2014Nov/0027
>
>
>