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

IMPORTANT: Fwd: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:23:10 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918172119.00ba4130@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@icl.com>, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
I'd like people to send their feedback on Wednesday September 20 (not 30, 
typo on the digit).

So again, let us know how you feel on this issue by _this_ Wednesday. Thanks.

Forwarded Text ----
>Before we request Candidate Rec status for Canonical XML there's one issue 
>that I've been trying to understand and come to closure on, and that's the 
>implications of the recent XML Plenary decision on Canonical XML: "to 
>deprecate the use of relative URI references in namespace declarations." 
>[1] What does that mean for the Canonical Form? We've had some discussion 
>on this over this week in this WG [2], some discussion in the XML 
>Coordination Group, and I also briefly discussed this with TimBL. I think 
>the two options we now face are below. Please post your preference -- and 
>optionally reason/rationale -- by end of day Wednesday September 30th.


__
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 18 September 2000 17:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:11 GMT