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

Re: Request for clarification on Canonical XML

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:42:00 -0400
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200307311142.00425.reagle@w3.org>

On Tuesday 29 July 2003 15:44, John Boyer wrote:
> regarding this character sequence issue is debatable to me.  It depends
> somewhat on the connotation of 'further qualification', which in the
> sentence comes across as 'almost incorrect' or 'partly mistaken'.

In the "caveat" category, I think my threshold is are we wasting many of the 
readers' time while banging their heads against the spec trying to figure 
something out. Granted the spec isn't incorrect, but they really want to do 
X and are looking for some guidance in the spec on how to do it.

In this case, I think there was a genuine question of whether Canonical XML 
provides or precludes a encoding-less Canonical XML. I hope this discussion 
and the text in [1] is sufficient to document that it doesn't provide, nor 
does it preclude someone else from simply defining and using such a thing. 
I think there's also a conceptual disagreement as to whether one can have 
octets in a RDF graph, but I don't think that's our specification's 
responsibility to answer.

So for the time being, I'm going to defer on an erratum. If the question 
comes up repeatedly, perhaps that will be further evidence that an erratum 
is necessary, or, more likely, that there's a requirement for new work.

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2003JulSep/0039.html
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 11:43:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:53 EDT