W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > October 2012

Re: sanity check

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:21:04 +0700
Message-ID: <5522111022405389613@unknownmsgid>
To: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
Cc: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:19 PM, James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com> wrote:

> * in '5 Security Considerations' we assume that XML Canonization is a
> security issue only, we may want to separate this out, pointing out
> the various links to http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11/ . Worried that
> this important information is being buried here.

The spec currently links to the IETF version of the C14N spec; this
should probably be changed to point to the W3C version.

I don't see how describing a security issue in the Security
Considerations section is burying it.

> * I think the '1. Introduction' is far too verbose and could do with
> stating very clearly the differences in non normative terms with XML
> 1.0 right up front or perhaps just a link to B.1 Syntax is all that is
> needed.

There are 3 "motivational" paragraphs that could be cut, but I think
they provide useful context for somebody coming to the spec without
any XML background. What harm do they do?

I don't mind linking to B.1 in the intro, but I don't want to repeat
B.1 nor move it into the body of the spec: the spec should not be
targeted at XML experts.

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 07:21:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:11 UTC