Fwd: Re: Last Call: Exclusive Canonical XML

The fact that ancestor xml:base declarations would be absent from a 
serialized subset seems to be a cause for surprise. However, I believe this 
is the intent of exclusive canonicalization unless we wanted to make 
exceptions for certain types of xml:foo -- which I would not support. It's 
an interesting concern though and I don't recall myself thinking about it 
too much beyond xml:lang .

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: Last Call: Exclusive Canonical XML
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:53:15 -0500
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: chairs@w3.org

On Tuesday 20 November 2001 15:36, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> The DOM Level 3 Load and Save draft is using the Canonical XML spec
> in order to serialize a DOM node (see the feature "format-canonical"
> in the DOMWriter interface [1]). We should probably consider doing
> the same for this new canonical format.
> So expect comments from the DOM WG to determine if Exclude Canonical
> XML is in our radar and if yes, if we're happy with it.

Thank you, we'd certainly appreciate DOM's feedback!

> As a Last Call comment, section 3 explicitly excludes xml:base from the
> context (by excluding the xml namespace), this affects the interpretation
> of relative URIs in the subdocument...

This is true. xml:* declarations need to occur within the utilized (in the
XPATH selection) nodes if they are to be serialized.


--

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 09:56:33 UTC