- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:43:34 +0200
- To: Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
- Cc: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
On 2007-08-14 16:37:13 +0200, Konrad Lanz wrote: > How about: > > """ > [XPointer-xpointer] is in Working Draft status as of publication > of this edition of XML Signature. Therefore, the use of the > optional xpointer() scheme beyond the minimal usage discussed in this > section is discouraged for new systems and applications creating XML > signatures. > """ > > This will discourage new signatures being created using the xpointer > scheme, however not deprecate to optionally verify existing signatures > that have been created since 2002. My concern is that this language risks confusing readers more than needs to be: It all sounds as if xpointer() had been perfectly fine in the past, which is actually not the case. How about this? The original edition of this specification [XMLDSIG-2002] referenced the XPointer Candidate Recommendation [XPTR-2001]. That Candidate Recommendation has been superseded by the [xptr-fwk], [xptr-xmlns] and [xptr-element] Recommendations, and -- at the time of this edition -- the [xptr-xpointer] Working Draft. Therefore, support of the xpointer() scheme beyond the minimal usage discussed of this section is discouraged. Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 16:44:15 UTC