W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Irvine Minutes and ost-FTF syntax proposal

From: Brown, Sam <sbrown@saonet.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:57:07 -0700
Message-ID: <1EF0C92BCCDAD2118FD40020480E269B778975@10eEXCHANGE.SAONET.UCLA.EDU>
To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>, david.solo@citicorp.com
Cc: jboyer@uwi.com, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to ask this but I am wondering if
there is an estimated time frame for the XML specification to be finalized.

Sam Brown
Information Systems Manager
UCLA Arthur Ashe Student Health & Wellness Center
(310) 206-6356

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [SMTP:reagle@w3.org]
	Sent:	Wednesday, September 08, 1999 3:40 PM
	To:	david.solo@citicorp.com
	Cc:	jboyer@uwi.com; w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
	Subject:	RE: Irvine Minutes and ost-FTF syntax proposal

	At 17:45 99/09/08 -0400, david.solo@citicorp.com wrote:
	 >> At 12:06 99/09/07 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
	 >>  >>Consensus. The reference from SignedInfo will just be a 
	 >> URI. This can then
	 >>  >>  point to a manifest or package which can use
Xlink/Xptr/Xpath as
	 >>  >>appropriate.     This means you don't have to worry about 
	 >> Xptr in the core
	 >>  >>signature syntax.
	 >>  >Perhaps I misunderstood what that meant.  Did you just mean 
	 >> that we could
	 >>  >punt the problem of having to make up a syntax for 
	 >> exclusion?  Please
	 >>  >clarify.
	 >> 
	 >> For the core syntax yes.
	 >
	 >I agree we need to clarify the types of references in the spec (on
the
	todo 
	 >list).

	I'm sorry, are you saying exlusion/XPtr is in the core syntax, or
not?


	_________________________________________________________
	Joseph Reagle Jr.   
	Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
	XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 1999 19:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:07 GMT