XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2015 October 12

> 
> The XML Core WG telcons are scheduled for every other week. 
> 
> Our next telcon was scheduled for October 14, but since there
> has been no progress or request for telcon, I am CANCELLING
> the telcon of October 14 and sending out this status.
> 
> Our next telcon is scheduled for October 28.
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> Henry referenced Paul's email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/0010
> especially Paul's suggestion in point 4, though Henry wasn't
> sure he agreed with the suggestion.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Post some suggestion(s) to the list about
> how to address: Comment about documents with an "empty DTD".
> 
> ---
> 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.
> ---
> 
> 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.
> 
> We will need a diff (or list of changes); Loren says the diff 
> is already available.  Liam says we don't need a test suite if 
> there are no substantive changes.
> 
> We still need to:  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.
> 
> ACTION to David: Consider how to further progress on this work item.
> 
> XInclude 1.1
> ------------
> On 2015 June 30, we published our second XInclude 1.1 CR at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/CR-xinclude-11-20150630/
> 
> This CR period runs through the end of August.
> 
> 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 announces that he has one conforming implementation,
> the one in XML Calabash, and he is working on another.
> 
> Henry is seeing if Richard would implement it in his toolset.
> Norm says no more than an afternoon's work should be involved.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the implementation report and test suite.
> 
>