W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > July 2009

Re: C14N 2.0 initial draft

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:24:10 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CE3AF1EC-9C17-450C-873E-D94D24207A6B@nokia.com>
To: "ext pratik.datta@oracle.com" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Some initial quick questions/comments:

1) abstract, 1st para, does
  "It also folds the 2.0 version of Exclusive Canonicalization into  
same document"
mean
"It also incorporates an update to Exclusive Canonicalization,  
effectively a 2.0 version,  as well."

2)abstract, last sentence
did this mean 2.0?
"Canonical XML Version 2.0 is applicable to XML 1.0. It is not defined  
for XML 1.1."

3) Terminology

would it be clearer to refer to "Canonical document" rather than  
"Canonical form" to avoid confusion with "Canonical XML"?

4) Section 1.4
add to 1st sentence, "with Canonical XML 1.0 and 1.1."

5) Section 1.4.1 change "However the C14N 1.x algorithms are only slow  
if one follows the algorithm exactly as in the 1.x spec. "  to read  
"However the C14N 1.x algorithms are only slow if one follows the  
algorithm exactly as written in the 1.x spec without any attempt at  
optimization."

6) Section 1.4.1, 2nd para
change "So this specification restriction the input of the  
canonicalization algorithm, so" to
"This specification restricts the input of the canonicalization  
algorithm so"

7) Section 2.1 Note: This input model...

"of a the" to "of the"
"all the known use cases" to "the essential use cases"

8) 2.2 table, entry trimTextNodes

" then text nodes descendants of that element are not trimmed." to
" then text nodes descendants of that element are not trimmed  
regardless of the value of this parameter."

9) 2.2

do we want "xmlIdAncestors"? Wasn't the behaviour a bug in C14N10? I  
assume the goal is to allow a named parameter set for c14n10, but  
given 1.1 not sure we want to support that.

10) 2.3.2, processTextNode

how could you process a text node outside the document root (or  
subtree root) in this processing model?

11) I assume at some needed material from C14N11 will be added to this  
document
e.g. join-URI-References description.

Thanks for putting this draft together.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jul 3, 2009, at 4:12 AM, ext pratik.datta@oracle.com wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/c14n-20/Overview.html
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 23:26:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:59 GMT