On 2007-08-07 13:22:18 -0400, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > I think we should go with the second option in #1, so that the > reader is at least aware of the situation. Actually, +1 to that, in particular in the light of [1]. 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2007JulSep/0015.html > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > On Aug 7, 2007, at 10:05 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > >> >> I think the two alternatives we are discussing are: >> >> 1. Keep the following phrase: >> >>> Support of the xpointer() scheme [XPointer-xpointer] beyond the >>> minimal usage discussed in this section is discouraged. >> >> Possibly with a change as suggested during the call: >> >>> [XPointer-xpointer] is in Working Draft status as of publication >>> of this edition of XML Signature. Therefore, support of the >>> xpointer() scheme beyond the minimal usage discussed in this >>> section is discouraged. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 13:58:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:01 GMT