Re: importing terminology in "XML-Signature Requirements"

"Joseph M. Reagle Jr." wrote:
> At 04:17 PM 7/13/99 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xmldsig-requirements-990623.html
[...]
> >Talking about a piece of code in any way other than behaviour
>  >that's observable from the outside is counterproductive in
>  >specs. In stead of:
>  >      An XML-Signature application must be able to use and understand
>  >I suggest you just write:
>  >      The XML-Signature specification may depend on:
> 
> I don't quite follow, I find the latter more ambigous. What I'm trying to
> state is that a signed-XML application IS a {XLink, XPtr, XML-namespace}
> application as described. (Perhaps with additional constractions.)

But the term "XML-namespaces application" isn't defined anywhere.
I don't think there is/will be terms "XLInk application"
nor "XPointer application" either. So I don't see how
you think the former is less ambiguous; it referes to undefined terms.

What's ambiguous about saying that the XML Signature spec
may depend on the XLink/XPointer/namespaces specs? i.e. folks
who plan to implement the XML Signature spec are advised to
get familiar with those specs as well. Change
"may" to "shall" if you like.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
tel:+1-512-310-2971 (office, mobile)
mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org (put your tel# in the Subject:)