W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: deprecating xpointer

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:05:49 +0200
To: Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070821130549.GY7722@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-08-21 14:58:57 +0200, Konrad Lanz wrote:

> 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	superseded by the [xptr-fwk], [xptr-xmlns] and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"/

Works for me.

> 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.

I'd rather not go down that route.  Among other things, it isn't
clear to me that there are actually *multiple* broad implementations
that support it.

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 13:05:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:01 GMT