Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2016 January 6

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


[5 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 8]

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

Absent organizations
--------------------
John Cowan
Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
NACS (with regrets, proxy to the chair)

Our next telcon is scheduled for January 20.

Jirka gives regrets.

> 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.

If, for any of the subitems to this agenda item, there has
been no progress on it by February 3, that item will be
removed from our running agenda.


>
> 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.

If we have not heard from John by February 3, we will remove
his name from this action item.


>
> ----
>
> 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.

If by the February 3 telcon we have no more idea how to make
progress on this, I plan to delete this item from our running agenda.

Henry expresses regret that this isn't happening and wonders
what if anything we can do about.

>
>
> 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.

Jirka reports that there is another XInclude 1.1 implementation
in XML Mind XML Editor.  See:
http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/changes.html#v6.2.0


> 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.
>

Norm says he is making progress and might have something for
the WG to review by our next telcon.


> ---
> 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 says it looks like more work than he has time at present,
so we shouldn't wait for such.


>
> ---
>
> 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
>

ACTION to Henry:  Review the consequences to the spec of
changing 3023 to 7303 and report to Norm so that he can
adjust the spec accordingly.


> ---
>
> 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/2015Dec/0007
>
>
>