Re: deprecating xpointer

Dear all,

we can live with the text as proposed by Thomas with a small change. 

	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	superseded by the [xptr-fwk], [xptr-xmlns] and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,
	the use of the xpointer() scheme beyond the usage discussed 
        in this section is discouraged.


s/"support of xpointer()"/"the use of xpointer()"/
s/"minimal usage"/"useage"/

We however would still like to mention that we would appreciate some remark making verifiers aware of the fact the there are existing signatures in deployed systems making use of the optional xpointer() scheme.

We think the text could benefit a change to the first sentence.

	The original edition of this specification [XMLDSIG-2002]
	referenced the XPointer Candidate Recommendation
	[XPTR-2001] and some implementations support it optionally.
	
We think this would also add clarity.

regards
Konrad
A-SIT


Frederick Hirsch schrieb:
> 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>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 
Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 873 5547
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz
http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at

Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate):
https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm