W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > August 2005

again, canonicalization, and adoption

From: Webb Roberts <webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:58:49 -0400
Message-ID: <430E06D9.3050705@gtri.gatech.edu>
To: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM, public-xml-id@w3.org
Cc: webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu

We've begun the attempt to integrate xml:id into the next revision
of the GJXDM (Global Justice XML Data Model).  There is considerable
concern from the field:

1. Lack of support for xml:id.  Since xml is not yet approved,
systems may fail to support it, or may take some time to support it,
delaying adoption of and conformance to GJXDM.

2. Conflict between xml:id and Canonicalization.  The perception
exists that Canonicalization (not exclusive canonicalization) is
very important, and that xml:id breaks with respect to
canonicalization, and so that xml:id is not an option.  We have to
prove that this is not the case to move forward.

3. Instability.  The fact that xml:id is not yet a Recommendation
means that adoption at this point is risky.

We're at a decision point, and a go or no-go decision must be made. 
How does the xml:id community recommend that we address these
specific concerns?  A no-go decision means the GJXDM NDR will use a 
non-xml namespace for its ID attributes.

Thanks,
Webb Roberts (currently drafting the GJXDM NDR)

(a comment of concern from our group)

jjmierwa@visionair.com (Jospeh Mierwa) wrote:
> ...2 specific issues with the use of XML ID at this juncture.
> 
> First (and less importantly) is the tools concern. There is still
> a decided lag in tools being able to support the standard. Use 
> of ID at this point will very likely impact development schedules
> because of it and will slow the adoption to it.
> 
> Secondly, and more importantly is the fact that canonical xml is 
> an integrel part to web services security which is already very 
> heavily used in the enterprise. My understanding is that usage of
> xml:id with canonical xml still has compatibility issues, one of
> which is with duplicate IDs. I also have not seen anything from
> the W3C that would indicate the issues have been resolved. Moving
> the GJXDM to make use of xml:id would be premature without fully
> assessing the impacts on the transport technologies involved and
> without identifying adequate means of mitigating/working around
> those problems.
> 
> I understand that the GJXDM is not meant to be technology 
> specific, but we must have some regard for the prevalent 
> contemporary technologies in play, otherwise, we may see the rate
> of adoption of GJXDM (and consequently NIEM) slowed.


(previous discussion on the xml-id list)

webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu wrote:
>>>> I think it would be very helpful if there was some 
>>>> structured documentation that would help us get xml:id 
>>>> through c14n objections. Right now, there is resistance.

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM wrote:
>>> The Core WG plans to address the C14N issues, but we don't 
>>> feel that such plans need to be in the xml:id specification.

webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu wrote:
>> Agreed.  But sooner is definitely better, since we have lead 
>> times for vetting upcoming releases.

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM wrote:
> Indeed.


-- 
Webb Roberts (webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu)
Research Scientist, Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, GA  404-385-0181
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 17:59:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:39 GMT