W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > January 2011

RE: Changes to 2.0 draft

From: Cantor, Scott E. <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:37:40 +0000
To: "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7EE86E89365CA94F8E7B8251F926071002EBC5@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
> I think it can work in this case, since the element section for IncludedXPath
> etc is at a high level regarding functionality, gives the syntax and then should
> refer to the algorithm in the algorithms section (might need to add a forward
> reference).

It might, I can't really tell without seeing it. The concern is that the actual use of the elements is only defined by the selection algorithms, which would be down below. You jump forward, and then back to where the reference for the elements is.

> However if we consider the algorithm section only for pluggable security
> algorithms (which was probably the original intent) then I think I agree with
> you.

No, that section included transforms too. It's for all extension points, IMHO.

> (As a thought experiment, if in 2.0 we were to move algorithms to a
> separate document, would we move the Byte Range selection algorithm out
> with that document (section 8.6.3)? I would say no.)

No, I don't thiink the Selection or Verification plug points would be moved out, but for the sake of argument, would we have moved the Transforms out? Hard to say.

> The net proposal is to simply move section 8.6 and 8.7 as is, under 4.4.3 (The
> Reference Element) Section, following .
> Is this what you are thinking?

No, I was just thinking that the Selection and Verifications element descriptions might fit under section 4, but not the algorithms themselves. And the question is where the parameter elements to those algorithms fit. The only reason it's even up for debate is that the parameters are common across the algorithms.

Actually, what I would really suggest is to move 8.6.5/8.6.6 under neath 8.6.2, and then refer back to it there in section 8.6.4 (in other words, "see sec XXX for the definition of..."). Similar for ByteRange.

-- Scott
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 23:38:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:15 UTC