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

Re: ACTION-523: review c14n 2.0 draft

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:14:09 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EABF6AB9-9D2E-461B-97C4-3C75D1A5A1BF@nokia.com>
To: "edsimon@xmlsec.com" <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Thanks Ed

+1 generally, comments inline

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Apr 11, 2010, at 1:27 PM, ext Ed Simon wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps we should rename this parameter to "noDocumentPreProcessing"  
to indicate no default attribute processing, no attribute  
normalization and no processing of entities, in a definition that is  
not DTD specific.

>
> 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.

why is this valuable, if the output of canonicalization in signature  
is fed into the digesting operation?

I believe we may have decided against using the canonicalized form as  
a interchange format - so I think we need to be clear of the  
requirements here.

>
> 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 Monday, 12 April 2010 22:14:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 April 2010 22:14:40 GMT