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

RE: ACTION-638: high level reorg suggestions

From: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <825df24b-73da-4ce1-bcab-9fc8503bd298@default>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, cantor.2@osu.edu
Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
Since we are in the topic, one problem I have always had with the overall flow of the document, is that it requires you to understand the "Compatibility Mode" before you can understand the "2.0 mode".   But we are essentially deprecating the "Compatibilty mode".  So rather it should be the other way around  - i.e. most of the doc should be about 2.0 mode,  and towards the end of the doc we can explain that whatever is in 1.0 is also supported, maybe we can have a separate top level section for that.

Right now most of the 2.0 stuff is inside "Section 6. Algorithms."  embedded inside the 2.0 Transform.  I would rather have the doc say -don't worry about meaning of Transforms, that is a just a hack we are doing to preserve backward compatibility, here is the new reference processing model  Selection->Canonicalization->Digesting. And then later on we can describe what Transforms were and why we have deprecated them.

Pratik


-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:30 PM
To: cantor.2@osu.edu
Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; public-xmlsec@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-638: high level reorg suggestions

I agree -  I'd rather see a very short 2.0 Transforms section and separate 2.0 Selection and 2.0 Verification sections.

(Not to start a gigantic bikeshedding discussion but, should this be called something other than "2.0 Mode", like "Streaming Mode"?)
 
regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:19 PM, ext Cantor, Scott E. wrote:

>> Please take a look (possible browser reload needed) to see if the table of
>> contents is still good:
> 
> The only argument I would make is with the changes under 6.7.1, but I actually would prefer that we have a whole new 6.8 for Selection Algorithms anyway, so let's discuss.
> 
>> I think we now have a sensible table of contents, with no more changes
>> needed, so I think you can go ahead with the other changes you were going
>> to work on.
> 
> Alright, I'll finish up 6.7.2 - 6.7.4 then, and put the XPath material in place.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 23:33:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 December 2010 23:33:48 GMT