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

Re: Should I organize a call on the XPath Filter?

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:29:42 -0500
Message-Id: <200203201629.LAA26227@tux.w3.org>
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>, "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 19:58, John Boyer wrote:
> From a change standpoint, defining set intersection and subtraction is a
> relatively small change to the spec.  I think the optimizations will
> also be easy to define and not hard on the programmer because we
> basically only want to account for the current include/exclude cases.
> Given the optimizations, I would certainly agree that the set operations
> represent a preferable architecture.

I agree that this seems to be where the consensus is headed. I'm not aware 
of any standing opposition to set operations though there is still some 
confusion: Christian asking about what exactly Merlin is proposing [1], and 
my confusion about multiple transforms operating on the *original* 
document, not their preceding transforms output [2]. So before we have a 
call or resort to a poll I'd recommend we gather our thoughts and first 
reflect these changed in the document. Then we can further discuss as 



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, 20 March 2002 11:29:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:37 UTC