W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: References in XML Signature PER

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:27:13 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0804300127l7c0fe742g5b8d180f5d493113@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "XMLSec XMLSec" <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>, "ext Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>
Sure, the problem is consistency between the Unicode version Referenced in
XML 1.0 Specification and the Unicode version referenced directly in the
spec

Indeed, XML 1.0 Specification Fourth Edition references Unicode 2 AND
Unicode 3.2, and also ISO/IEC 10646 as normative reference

For XML Signature, there is no distinction between normative reference and
non normative, so it is assumed that all are normative !!

Which imply that

for example the reference to UAX #15 (called NFC TR15) is a bit old (1999)
but is consistent with Unicode 3.2

but your reference to Unicode is not sufficiently precise (you're pointing
to the home page) which could lead to problem if someone wants to points to
recent Unicode version

So may be the solution is just to split reference between, normative and
informative

Regards,

Mohamed









On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Frederick Hirsch <
frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> I  believe updating an  XML 1.0, Second Edition [1] reference to XML 1.0
> Fourth Edition [2] in XML Signature, Second Edition PER [3] may be useful
> and appropriate.
>
> (1) It appears that the Fourth Edition is mostly editorial changes for
> clarity, as well as incorporation of errata [4]. One of these errata
> corresponds to changes in XML Signature Second Edition, an update of the URI
> reference from RFC 2732 to RFC 3986.
> "This fourth edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to
> readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated errata
> (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata) to the Third
> Edition of XML 1.0, dated 4 February 2004. In addition, the markup
> introduced in the third edition, to clarify when prescriptive keywords are
> used in the formal sense defined in [IETF RFC 2119], has been modified to
> better match the intent of [IETF RFC 2119]"
>
> (2) Likewise XML 1.0 Third edition incorporates editorial changes for
> clarity and incorporation of errata [5].
>
> "This third edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to
> readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated errata
> (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata) to the Second
> Edition of XML 1.0, dated 6 October 2000. In addition, markup has been
> introduced on a significant portion of the prescriptions of the
> specification, clarifying when prescriptive keywords such as must, should
> and may are used in the formal sense defined in [IETF RFC 2119]"
>
> Do members of this group, in particular those involved with the XML Core
> WG, believe it would be appropriate to update the XML 1.0 reference in XML
> Signature, Second Edition to the Fourth Edition of XML, and would doing so
> be viewed as editorial or a more substantive change?
>
> Would such a change have an impact on implementors?
>
> It may be that XML Signature is mostly orthogonal to those changes, in
> particular since the XML Fourth edition does not represent a new version of
> XML,  and thus this could be treated as editorial
>
> (3) A similar issue may also apply to Namespaces  in XML 1.0 [6] which
> have been updated to Namespaces  in XML 1.0, Second Edition [7], where the
> errata includes primarily  the deprecation of relative URIs in namespace
> declarations [8]. What are thoughts on updating this reference, treating it
> as editorial?
>
> It seems these changes are editorial in nature. Do you have insights or
> views on this?
>
> I'm not sure I understand that the unicode reference needs updating, any
> thoughts on that reference?
>
> Thanks
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmldsig-core-20080326/
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xml-20060614/
>
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/
>
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
>
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
>
> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#errata10
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > we've received one comment about XML Signature PER which requests a
> > review of the references, specifically XML 2nd Edition and Unicode.
> >
> > Forwarded with permission.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  +33-4-89063488
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2008-04-06 13:10:01 +0000, WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax+
> > w3c@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > From: "WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax+w3c@gmail.com<innovimax%2Bw3c@gmail.com>
> > > "
> > >        <webmaster@w3.org>
> > > To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com <innovimax%2Bw3c@gmail.com>,
> > >        team-security-activity-proposal-review@w3.org
> > > Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:10:01 +0000
> > > Subject: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: XML Signature Syntax and
> > >        Processing  (Second Edition)?? is W3C Proposed Recommendation'
> > > Reply-To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com <innovimax%2Bw3c@gmail.com>
> > > List-Id: <team-security-activity-proposal-review.w3.org>
> > > X-Spam-Level:
> > > Archived-At:
> > >        <
> > > http://www.w3.org/mid/wbs-f743d3cf28a5f52bede4713530dde6b5@cgi.w3.o
> > >        rg>
> > > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for
> > > Review:
> > > XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)
> > >  is W3C Proposed Recommendation' (Advisory Committee) for INNOVIMAX by
> > > Mohamed ZERGAOUI.
> > >
> > > Regarding the "XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)"
> > > specification, the reviewer  suggests changes, and only supports
> > > publication as a Recommendation if the changes are adopted.
> > >
> > >
> > > Additional comments about the specification:
> > >   The references are almost all out of synch and may introduce burden
> > > because of misinterpretation, mainly due to references to old Unicode
> > > publication directly and to XML second edition.
> > >
> > > I ask that all reference should be carefully weighted to not introduce
> > > more problems than solutions
> > >
> > >
> > > The reviewer's organization:
> > >   - produces products addressed by this specification
> > >
> > > Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> > > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xmlsigper2008/ until 2008-04-30.
> > >
> > >  Regards,
> > >
> > >  The Automatic WBS Mailer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:27:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:27:53 GMT