Re: Please help me to find the exc-c14n

Thanks Joseph, for adding the erratum.
But as you said, it would be nice to restructure the rules to include
the same, especially because this is an issue with the core part of the
specification.

Suggestion : I think, merging the same with rule-3 may not be easy,
but of course you can add a separate rule.

Thanks once again,

regards,
Sijo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>
To: "Sijo Mathew" <sijo@avenir.net>; <tony@vordel.com>;
<w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Please help me to find the exc-c14n


> On Wednesday 02 July 2003 02:51, Sijo Mathew wrote:
> > 2)  rule-3 applies only to namespace nodes *with prefixes*. In our
> >      case the namespace node rendered has no prefix.
>
> It's rule 3, with an earlier sentence in mind, "A similar definition
applies
> for an element E in a document subset that visibly utilizes the default
> namespace declaration, which occurs if E has no namespace prefix." I can
> see where you got confused; however, as hard as I try I can't easily
> reformulate rule 3 to include this caveat every time the term "prefix" is
> used without making it completely unreadable. Consequently, I propose this
> imperfect eratum with the expectation that should a second revision ever
> issue, we'll need to maybe introduce a new defined term or re-structure
> these rules to better express our intent:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/07/xml-exc-c14n-errata#E04
> |    E04 2003-07-02 (Editorial)
> |           In section 3. Specification of Exclusive XML
> |           Canonicalization, rule 3 needs to be read to include
> |           non-empty default namespace declarations,
> |           consequently it should read as,
> |
> |          3. A namespace node N with a prefix that does not
> |             appear in the the InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList
> |             [INS: (including non-empty default namespaces with
> |             a "null" prefix) :INS] is rendered if all of the
> |             conditions are met:
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 09:02:40 UTC