Re: [XPath Filter 2.0] Comments on current draft

On Sunday 26 May 2002 08:42 am, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
> (1) I think there a fuzzy use of the term "input document":
>     In the first sentence it identifies the underlying document
>     of the input node set (as defined in section 2, so I think
>     this is the correct use). In the second sentence it
>     identifies the input data of the transform; I suggest to
>     use the term "input" instead.

Changed to "The input required by this transform is an XPath input node-set 
over the input document." to abide by the definitions in section 2. 

> (2) The conversion form an octet stream to a XPath node-set
>     should be given more precise: I suggest to use the same
>     sentence as can be found in section 4.3.3.2 of XMLDISG [2]:
>       "... MUST attempt to parse the octets yielding the
>        required node-set via [XML] well-formed processing."

Ok.

http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-filter2/Overview.html
new revision: 1.7;


-- 

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, 29 May 2002 11:24:08 UTC