W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: From John Boyer

From: Doug Bunting <Doug@ariba.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:41:59 -0700
Message-ID: <BD93B9BF6CDBD3119494009027F43CB4F5E27B@us-mtvmail1.ariba.com>
To: "'Lightning'" <lightning@pacificcoast.net>, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "'jboyer@PureEdge.com'" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Thanks, John, for all of your comments.  And, Joseph, for the logistics

On this particular point, I wasn't attempting to point out an error.
Instead, the current paragraph implies something which may confuse readers.
The concept of a "default attribute" doesn't really need the extra "that
were not specified and not declared as #implied" text.  #REQUIRED attributes
must be specified.  #IMPLIED attributes must be specified to appear in the
Canonical form's node set.  Et cetera.

How about "... default attributes (attributes not specified in the document
but declared with an AttValue
<http://www.xml.com/axml/target.html#NT-AttValue>) in the DTD)"?  "in the
document" and "in the DTD" may not be necessary.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lightning [mailto:lightning@pacificcoast.net]
Sent: July 2, 2000 22:56
To: Joseph M. Reagle Jr.
Cc: Doug@ariba.com
Subject: From John Boyer

Hi Joseph,

I omitted a response to one of the points in Doug's email when I responded.

Could you please post this response:

Regarding your comments about #implied, please see Section 3.3.2, which you

BNF rule 60 (the only one in the section) defines DefaultDecl as #REQUIRED
or #IMPLIED or #FIXED AttValue.

The statement made in the c14n spec does not appear to be in error.
Further, see Section 5.3 of the XPath spec, which discusses the
non-existence of nodes to represent undeclared attributes that have been
declared #IMPLIED by the DTD.

John Boyer
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 10:29:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:34 UTC