- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:50:26 -0400
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
I like the clarity and openness of this suggestion, it gives a clear and accurate statement of the state of standards work, use is discouraged - but captures the fact that this was not clear previously allowing judgement to be applied [not speaking as chair] regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:43 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > > 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 superseded by the [xptr-fwk], [xptr-xmlns] and 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 18:51:07 UTC