W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: Latest version of the Infoset

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:45:34 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010329094321.03b4ad20@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
Cc: <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Hello John,

Sorry, our mails crossed, several times.

I hope I have been able to explain why CDATA doesn't have to
be (or actual should not be) in the Infoset. I have followed
some pointers and read some old mail, but I still don't
understand why you think CDATA should be in the Infoset,
or how this would relate to C14N and signatures.

Regards,  Martin.

At 15:18 01/03/28 -0800, John Boyer wrote:
>Hi Martin,
>
>I know the status of infoset and I know that the WD publication is the
>usual procedure, and said as much in my response to Philippe.  However,
>in cases where the changes are substantive (e.g. whole sections were
>taken out of the infoset spec), documentation pertaining to who
>requested the change and why must be provided, also as a matter of
>policy, and a second last call should be issued (for the reasons noted
>by Joseph Reagle).
>
>In the particular case of Infoset, it appears that entity reference
>markers were removed in order to support XInclude, which in my current
>opinion, should not be constructed as it is.  Moreover, regarding the
>removal of CDATA section markers, I'm told that I18N said they should be
>dumped.  I've asked for clarification because the reason, on the
>surface, didn't make sense.  To that end, you are a great guy to give
>such clarification...
>
>Thanks,
>John Boyer
>Senior Product Architect, Software Development
>Internet Commerce System (ICS) Team
>PureEdge Solutions Inc.
>Trusted Digital Relationships
>v: 250-708-8047  f: 250-708-8010
>1-888-517-2675   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:55 PM
>To: Philippe Le Hegaret; John Boyer
>Cc: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org; w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Latest version of the Infoset
>
>
>Hello Philippe, John,
>
>It is not true in general, and it is not true in particular for the
>Infoset, that going back to working draft means that there is another
>last call. An additional working draft is often used to confirm last
>call resolutions just before going to CR.
>
>For details, please see http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#status.
>
>Regards,    Martin.
>
>At 16:21 01/03/28 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >John Boyer wrote:
> > > Editors:  Is there some reason why entity ref (and cdata) markers
>got
> > > yanked?  I can understand tweaking features in response to a last
>call,
> > > but it seems uncommon to make such a substantive change without
>issuing
> > > another last call.
> >
> >The document is back to working draft so there will be an other last
>call
> >in the future.
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 19:47:00 GMT

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