W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Problem in exclusive canonicalization? encoding underspecified

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:18:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3F008D1D.9000409@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
CC: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Martin Duerst wrote:

> I just have had a look at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718, and found
> two problems, one of them i18n-related.
> 1) encoding underspecified?
> The exclusive canonical form of a document subset is a physical 
> representation of the XPath node-set, as an octet sequence, produced by 
> the method described in this specification.
> This does not at all say what the encoding is. Is this UTF-8? If yes,
> where is this specified? If no, what is the encoding? Is the reader
> supposed to go check elsewhere?

I found that very clear.
IIRC exc-c14n defers to c14n which specifies UTF-8,
I'll check ...
"The exclusive canonical form ...

is as defined in the Canonical XML Recommendation [XML-C14N] except ..."

and following the link
UTF-8 is in the first bullet point in the definition of canonical form in 
section 1.1.

> 2) what is 'visible'?
> The document says "namespace nodes that are not on the InclusiveNamespaces
> PrefixList are expressed only in start tags where they are visible and if
> they are not in effect from an output ancestor of that tag."
> The word 'visible' turns up only one more time, again not in a defining
> context. Readers probably can work out what 'visible' is supposed to
> mean from context and examples, but that's not how a spec should work,
> I guess.

Once again I found that clear: #def-visibly-utilizes is the anchor.
I suppose the reader is meant to link visible and visibly

> Regards,    Martin.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 15:19:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:38 UTC