W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: xml:lang in exclusive C14N - digging through the archives

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:58:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030815100706.05f6aeb8@localhost>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Hello Jeremy,

Yes, the end result of exclusive canonicalization was acceptable
for I18N in that the REC concluded clear text on the limits of its
function and use.

So for example, it would be appropriate (in terms of language information)
for a Web Services application to use exclusive canonicalization as the
base to sign or otherwise process a SOAP body part, because SOAP <Body>
and <Envelope>, the two elements above it in the SOAP document, don't
allow xml:lang.

An equivalent example for RDF would be the situation where no
elements of the actual RDF syntax would allow xml:lang, except
the property elements that don't have rdf:parseType='Literal'.
[note: this is not a proposal for new syntax]

Making sure that a spec notes the limits of its function and use
is not the same as endorsing it for all uses.

Regards,    Martin.


At 13:28 03/08/15 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>I spent a little time trying to understand what position I18N took on the 
>exc-c14n last call draft, which included the design decision to discard 
>xml:lang, for which RDF Core is now getting so much grief.
>
>
>In summary, the dropping of xml:lang when a XML fragment is being carried 
>within a larger XML document, does not appear to be a new issue, but one 
>that was considered and accepted by I18N two years ago.
>
>
>
>Detail:
>
>Misha forward the last call to I18N:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2001Nov/0043.html
>
>There was some concern about the xml:lang issue
>[[
>ACTION: Martin to ask for a health warning re problem with Exclusive
>Canonicalization, where xml:lang and perhaps namespaces get ignored when
>signing a payload.
>]]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2002Feb/0020.html
>(12th Feb)
>
>
>This resulted in (as far as I can tell):
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002AprJun/0065.html
>(apr 21)
>
>(There seems to have been some off-list traffic just before)
>
>However, as far as I can tell, the end result was acceptable to I18N.
>
>(The minutes of the next I18N telecon record the action as done)
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2002Apr/0106.html
>
>
>
>
>Jeremy
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 10:59:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:39 EDT