- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:46:42 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Attendees ========= Paul Norm Henry Michael SMcQ Konrad (IRC and Zakim) Ed Simon (IRC and Zakim) Frederick Hirsch Thomas Roessler Hal Lockhart C14N 1.1 ======== Frederick had sent out some suggested wording changes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Nov/0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Nov/0001 forwarded to the XML Core list by Paul at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0017 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0026 Frederick explained his changes and took detailed notes. We agreed on everything up to the point where we started talking about removing Appendix A. Konrad suggested a new algorithm at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Oct/0024 Thomas suggested changing the third bullet in Frederick's latest suggestion replacing "to prevent the creation of an output that looks like a net path" to "combine multiple consecutive slashes into a single slash." Norm asks why we can't just say that the effect we want is to minimize the value and leave how that is done up to the implementor. Henry suggests we could say that the minimized version is the "shortest". But we wonder if that is enough guidance. We note that, if we are going to replace appendix A with a new algorithm, we will have to redo some implementation feedback. So some of us want just to delete Appendix A, but then we need to be sure the prose says enough. We thought perhaps we could add the examples at http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html# XMLBASE_ANNEXA to the spec to address the issue of dropping the appendix. We decided to add these examples as an informative appendix. We talked about saying to get the shortest that gives the same result as the original. A big discussion ensued. Roy Fielding was missed. We decided that we also need to add to the third bullet the fact that we then add a trailing slash if the result (before adding that slash) ends in "..". We believe our suggested changes to the third bullet point allows us to delete Appendix A. ACTION to Frederick: Update the redline version with our latest decisions and resend to the groups. ACTION to Glenn: Produce a new editor's draft reflecting the changes suggested in Frederick's updated redline. Then we noticed a problem in the merging process (which produces the input to the "Appendix A process"): where 'Base' argument to join-uris ends with "..". 3986 merge will discard that ".." which is wrong. ACTION to Thomas and Frederick: Get implementors to run this new test case and report the results. End of time for this topic.
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 15:47:29 UTC