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

Re: Typo in xml-id spec; canonicalization?

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 12:10:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4278F40C.8040606@metalab.unc.edu>
To: Webb Roberts <webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu>
CC: public-xml-id@w3.org

Webb Roberts wrote:

> They assumed (correctly) that other attributes would be added to the 
> namespace, but were wrong in believing that they would support copying.  
> An errata could be added to the canonicalization spec that clarified the 
> point, and make explicit exactly which attributes from the xml namespace 
> are merged in.

This is not a simple mistake that could be fixed by an erratum. It was a 
deliberate design decision, almost certainly the wrong decision but a 
decision nonetheless. It is irresponsible and dangerous to change the 
existing spec and suddenly invalidate tools that correctly implement the 
specification as published. Not that the W3C hasn't done this in the 
past, but it's been a royal mess when they have.

We can't rewrite history. Possibly your use case could be adequately 
addressed simply by requiring the use of exclusive XML canonicalization. 
The existing algorithm really can't be changed at this point. New 
algorithms can be created, but that seems unnecessary when exclusive 
canonicalization already solves the problem.

Is there some reason you can't mandate exclusive XML canonicalization?

Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:11:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:50 UTC