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

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

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:58:59 +0200
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, w3c-xml-cg@w3.org, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070718165858.GM9569@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-07-18 12:18:08 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:

> The XML Core WG just met and discussed this issue.

Thanks a lot for the quick response!

> There are no good solutions.  We realize that you have
> an existing Recommendation that has referenced xpointer(),
> and you have implementations that support this.
> 
> We recommend in the next edition of the Rec that you
> reference the latest version of xpointer (which is the 
> WD) as opposed to the (failed) CR, and explain in your 
> spec what implementations should do in terms of the
> existing XPointer Recommendations as you've suggested
> in your message.
> 
> The wordings in your message below seem fine to me.
> One question and one other issue remain.
> 
> My only remaining question is whether it is the case
> that the spec will allow only those two forms of xpointer,
> or if the spec allows other forms to be supported.  Since
> xpointer doesn't really exist, if you can live with just
> #xpointer(/) and #xpointer(id('ID')), those are the only
> forms you should allow and the spec should make that clear.

The intent of the current draft is to only mention the xpointer()
scheme with respect to these two idioms; referencing the WD there
makes a lot of sense.

Other than that, XPointer support (generically) has been
capital-letters OPTIONAL in the existing recommendation, and there
has been no proposal to change that.  Given that (theoretically),
xpointer() could still move to Rec, I wonder if we should say
anything more?

> Finally, the claim that the XPointer Framework Recommendation
> says that the use of such an xpointer implies that comments are
> not preserved is false.  I assume it is due to a misreading of
> the Conformance section that says:

There's no intent to attribute that behavior to the XPointer
Framework rec: Rather, it's a property of XML Signature's processing
model for same-document references, see point 5 in section 4.3.3.3.

  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-Same-Document

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 16:59:07 GMT

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