Note that the XML people have identified a significant amount of overlap between C14N (Canonicalization) and the Infoset working group. If people are interested in the C14N issues, I suggest they look at the most recent Infoset Draft. [1] I hope the Syntax WG will have a first public WD prior to the IETF meeting -- but I'm not convinced we will. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset Forwarded Text ---- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:12:29 -0700 To: "XML Syntax WG" <w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org> From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Subject: Minutes:1999.06.02 XML Syntax WG ... 4. Canonicalization NOTE: James Tauber *does* have time to put into this, but wants a co-editor ACTION: Chairs to recruit co-editor Issue: possible overlap with Infoset CONSENSUS: There is a real co-ordination issue here CONSENSUS: Portions of XML documents considered "Required" should be identical to that included in the canonical form. ACTION: T.Bray to send message to Megginson, cc the CG, noting this. CONSENSUS: In section 3, use infoset terminology & be consistent ACTION: T.Bray, to XML-i-fy the spec CONSENSUS: Express the material in section 4 in algorithms End Forwarded Text ---- _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-DSig Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/Received on Thursday, 3 June 1999 08:00:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:06 GMT