W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: [XPath Filter 2.0] Interop Report

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:24:27 +0200
To: <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "'XMLSigWG'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008b01c206d9$93a243b0$52981b81@iaik.at>
Joseph,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 8:01 PM
> To: Gregor Karlinger
> Cc: 'XMLSigWG'
> Subject: Re: [XPath Filter 2.0] Interop Report
[...]
> > BTW: Why is the Application feature in the table labelled
> >      "base64 encoding"? I cannot see such a feature in the
> >      XPath Filter 2.0 spec.
> 
> Ok, changed to "xpath-filter2". Does anyone thinks it's 
> useful to break out 
> different features such as intersect, subtract, union? 
> Anything else? I 
> don't think this is that useful for reporting, though we need 
> to make sure 
> all of these things are in our test set.

No, I do not think that such a split into particular subfeatures
makes sense.

The moment we have solved the problem with empty node sets I 
explained recently (could anybody of the spec editors please
comment!), I could contribute some examples dealing with empty
input node sets and empty XPath processing results.

Regards, Gregor


Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 03:08:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT