- From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:44:42 -0600
- To: core <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <568A936A.6060203@paulgrosso.name>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, January 6, from 08:30-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:30-12:00 Eastern time aka 16:30-17:00 UTC 16:30-17:00 in Ireland and the UK 17:30-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe We are now using Webex for our conferences. See https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#std-telcon-info You can join by phone by dialing +1-617-324-0000 directly and using an access code of 643 434 633#. ************************************************************** There has recently been some business about needing a host to start the telcon. I will try to dial in early to do this, but if for some reason you cannot get in, check the IRC channel for information. ************************************************************** You can also use the Webex client (and have it call you) by pointing your browser at https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mc1156896bec942d319521903648bd6c4. We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 . See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents and other information. If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon. Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it at the beginning of the call. Agenda ====== 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. ---- 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. ---- 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. 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. 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. 4. XInclude 1.1--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude 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 ran minimally through the end of August; at this time we appear to have enough implementations (though Henry may supply another), and we are waiting to update the spec, test suite, and implementation report to go the PR. Norm has an implementation in XML Calabash. He has also implemented XInclude 1.1 in MarkLogic. 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 ACTION to Norm: Update the implementation report and test suite. --- Henry has started working on extending Richard's XInclude 1.0 implementation to do XInclude 1.1. Henry says he's made some progress and expects to do more. ACTION to Henry: Report on progress on extending Richard's XInclude 1.0 implementation. --- Henry points out that Section 4.4 [11] references RFC 3023 which has been superseded by RFC 7303 [12]. The 7303 rules for determining encoding of XML documents are slightly different from the 3023 ones, and might even be a bit easier to implement. He doesn't think you can get away from starting to read at least some documents twice, but he'd like to discuss this on our next call. [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude-11/#text-included-items [12] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7303 --- Paul raised the question of whether the spec requires the support for RFC 5147. It isn't mentioned under Application Conformance, but the description of fragid, it says "for text processing, [the fragid value] is interpreted as a [IETF RFC 5147] fragment identifier" and it doesn't discuss what to do if an implementation doesn't support that. Norm suggests that we can't force implementations to support it and that we should clarify the spec to say that lack of support for fragid when parse=text should be a recoverable error. Henry and Paul agree with that suggestion. ACTION to Norm: Update the spec to clarify that lack of support for fragid when parse=text should be a recoverable error. paul [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#tasks [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2015Sep/0014
Received on Monday, 4 January 2016 15:50:32 UTC