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

Re: intent to squat on xpointer() -- normative reference issue(ACTION-66)

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:18:13 -0400
Message-Id: <0AE41D8A-39AC-455A-BFCF-04E08B3A1B16@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-cg@w3.org>, <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
To: "ext Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>

Paul

Thanks for thinking about what we are doing. I'd like to make sure I  
understand where we are with this set of changes.

I think we all agree that it is an improvement to reference the  
XPointer Framework Recommendation rather than an old XPointer CR  
draft that is no longer being developed.

Along with that we can make some changes to XML Signature to adjust  
to XPointer Framework and Element() Scheme Recommendations, and doing  
that is also good.

This then leaves us with the issue of how to deal with a bit a  
material that became part of the Signature Recommendation that was  
based on a CR draft which then which did not progress to a subsequent  
REC.

We think we can do this in a way that does not impact conformance of  
existing implementations and yet which allows us to reference the  
current recommendations (and does not make assumptions about future  
work either)

This is to add the following two statements to XML Signature

>  '#xpointer(/)' MUST be interpreted to identify the root node
>  [XPath] of the document that contains the URI attribute.
>

This is necessary, as Thomas noted, due to the need to deal with XML  
comments that may be outside the document element. Is this statement  
incorrect regarding the interpretation it requires?

The following

>  '#xpointer(id('ID'))' MUST be interpreted to identify the element
>  node identified by '#element(ID)' [XPointer-Element] when
>  evaluated with respect to the document that contains the URI
>  attribute.

What this does is map existing usage based on the current XML  
Signature REC to the preferred approach based on XPointer scheme -  
necessary if we reference the current RECs instead of the old CR  
draft. Is this clarifying statement incorrect?

I admit that this is an unfortunate situation based on anticipating  
the progression of a draft document as to be used as a normative  
reference in a REC, when that progression didn't work out the way  
expected after the REC was completed.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jul 17, 2007, at 11:31 AM, ext Grosso, Paul wrote:

>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 July 17 10:20
>> To: Grosso, Paul
>> Cc: w3c-xml-cg@w3.org; public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: intent to squat on xpointer() -- normative
>> reference issue(ACTION-66)
>
>> See above: The failed XPointer Candidate Rec has been part of a
>> normative requirement in a successful Rec for the past five years.
>> That's where we're starting from.
>
> Then there isn't really any discussion that can be had.
>
> Just as one cannot form a coherent logical argument based on
> a false hypothesis, one cannot develop a coherent Recommendation
> that is normatively based on something that doesn't exist, the
> fact that you've already done that notwithstanding.
>
> If you define the problem to be just that, you've defined
> a universe in which modus ponens is irrelevant, so I'm
> not sure how to proceed from here.
>
> paul
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 17:25:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:00 GMT