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

RE: FW: FW: Last Call for XML Signature 2.0, Canonical XML 2.0 and XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0 ( LC-2489)

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:44:51 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA031C02EB@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Regarding the XML Core WG comment expressing concern about XML
Signature's development of another XPath subset and the XML
Signature's WG explanation of why this subset is necessary,
the XML Core WG accepts the explanation as a resolution of 
our comment.

paul

[bcc-ed to the XML Core mailing list]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: frederick.hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2011 June 14 14:53
> To: Grosso@jessica.w3.org; Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: FW: Last Call for XML Signature 2.0, Canonical XML
2.0
> and XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0 ( LC-2489)
> 
> 
>  Dear Grosso, Paul ,
> 
> The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1]
> on
> the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Signature Streaming Profile
> of
> XPath 1.0 published on 21 Apr 2011. Thank you for having taken the
time
> to
> review the document and to send us comments!
> 
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
> 
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-xmlsec@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 28 June 2011.
> In
> case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution
> for
> or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus
> cannot
> be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal
> objection
> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of
> this
> document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> For the XML Security Working Group,
> Thomas Roessler
> W3C Staff Contact
> 
>  1.
> http://www.w3.org/mid/9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA02EE3A07@HQ-
> MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com
>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xmldsig-xpath-20110421/
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> Your comment on :
> > XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-xpath/ In general I
> don't
> > think it is good idea to create yet another XPath subset.
> Proliferation
> > of XPath subsetting prevents using standalone XPath libraries when
> > implementing various subsets of the language. If streaming is
> necessary
> > then effort should be derived from XSLT 3.0 which provides streaming
> > facilities.
> 
> 
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2489):
> The XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0 makes sense for the
> reasons stated in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0013.html
and
> should continue on the Recommendation track.
> 
> ----
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 15:45:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 June 2011 15:45:48 GMT