W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > April 2010

ACTION-523: review c14n 2.0 draft

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:27:07 -0400
To: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1271006827.3093.37.camel@XMLSEC-BIZ.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Here's my review of "Canonical XML Version 2.0 (W3C Working Draft 04
March 2010)".

1. Should we use the term "textual representation" rather than "physical
representation" when describing XML documents?

2. In 1.4.1, the abbreviations "C14N" and "C14N11" need to be clarified.

3. Re "ignoreDTD". We probably discussed this before, but would someone
remind me why we are not covering XML Schema (and other schema
languages) even though XML Schema is used to define Canonical XML
Version 2.0.

4. The document talks about XML "parser(s)" but I believe XML processor
is the preferred term in W3C documentation.

5. In the last paragraph of 2.3, "xml" needs to be "XML" and
capitalization of "Attribute nodes" and "Namespace Nodes" needs to be
consistent. (I would think that no capitalization (e.g. "attribute
nodes" and "namespace nodes" would be correct.)

6. The first use of "DOM" needs to include a definition.

7. In section 2.5, explain for "prefixRewrite="digest"" that the value
of using this option is that namespace prefixes will be identical across
documents and contexts whereas the "sequential" option may result in
different namespace prefixes in different contexts.

8. For consistency, in 4.7 and 4.8, remove "Node" from the function
name.

Ed


-- 
========================================
Ed Simon, XMLsec Inc.
613-726-9645
edsimon@xmlsec.com 
Received on Sunday, 11 April 2010 17:27:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 11 April 2010 17:27:45 GMT