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

Re: Problem in exclusive canonicalization? encoding underspecified

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:36:36 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030630153314.04b85568@localhost>
To: "Ari Kermaier" <arik@phaos.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

At 15:16 03/06/30 -0400, Ari Kermaier wrote:
>Martin,
>
>It sounds like you're reading the Introduction, rather than the Specification
>which is in Section 3 of the document. Section 3 begins "The data model,
>processing, input parameters, and output data for Exclusive XML 
>Canonicalization
>are the same as for Canonical XML [XML-C14N] with the following exceptions",
>indicating that encoding (along with everything else) is as defined in C14N,
>i.e. UTF-8.

Thanks to you and others for pointing this out. This seems to be okay.



>Also in Section 3, the handling of namespaces nodes is specified
>using the term "visibly utilized", which is clearly defined in the document. I
>guess the paragraph in the introduction uses "visible" as shorthand for 
>"visibly
>utilized". The supporting and non-normative sections of the document are a
>little loosely worded, but the spec is, while quite terse, pretty well defined
>IMHO.

Given the terseness and precision of the specification, it seems to me
a bad idea to use both 'visible' and 'visibly utilized' with the same
meaning, even more so as it turns out that 'visibly utilized' is already
defined before 'visible' is used.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to fix this in an erratum.


Regards,    Martin.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 15:58:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:17 GMT