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