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

WS-RA reply on creating XPath profile document, response requested

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:28:42 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <B11D3340-19BB-46D2-AB43-D0EB325E6476@nokia.com>
To: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Attached is WS-RA response to our request regarding the creation of a  
common XPath profiling document

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Apr/0011.html

We should discuss how to  respond to WS-RA, and also whether we still  
need to separate our XPath profile from Signature 2.0 draft [1].

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG

Earlier WS-Fragment draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-fragment-20091217/#XPathL1

WS-RA minutes recording decision: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/10/05/2010-05-11.html#item12

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-XPath-2.0

Begin forwarded message:

> From: ext Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
> Date: May 12, 2010 9:03:25 AM EDT
> To: "public-ws-resource-access-comments@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access-comments@w3.org 
> >, "Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
> Subject: Combined specification for xpath dialects
>
> Dear Frederick,
> Your proposal and comment, which was recorded as Bugzilla Issue Nr.  
> 9588, was discussed and resolved at the WS-RA Working group meeting  
> of 2010-05-11.
> After consideration of your proposal as well as the proposal of an  
> additional xpath dialect from another group, the WG decided that it  
> wasn't in the business of defining xpath dialects at all.
> Consequently it has removed the definition of its "Xpath Level 1"  
> dialect from the ws-fragmant specification and is closing both this  
> issue and the other received requesting an additional xpath dialect  
> with no action.  These individual dialects seem to have specific  
> domain based requirements and as such did not seem appropriate for  
> insertion in these specifications.
> Please respond to the list copied in this email indicating your  
> agreement or disagreement with this approach.
> thanks
> -bob
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:29:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:29:42 GMT