W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2018

Re: Transition Request: Canonical EXI to Proposed Recommendation

From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:50:40 -0400
To: "tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com" <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "'timbl@w3.org'" <timbl@w3.org>, "'plh@w3.org'" <plh@w3.org>, "'ph@w3.org'" <ph@w3.org>, "'chairs@w3.org'" <chairs@w3.org>, "'w3t-comm@w3.org'" <w3t-comm@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, "'Carine Bournez (carine@w3.org)'" <carine@w3.org>, "'liam@w3.org'" <liam@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0feefa16-750f-64de-560c-fe6e9947bf8d@w3.org>
I have reviewed the materials in this transition request and determine 
that Canonical EXI has met its Candidate Recommendation exit criteria.

On behalf of the Director, this transition request is approved pending 
no objections sent to the chairs list by end of day on 26 April.

The Working Group charter has expired and therefore a charter extension 
will be needed before the Proposed Recommendation may be published.

-Ralph

On 2018-04-20 02:29 PM, tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com wrote:
> This is a request to publish a Proposed Recommendation of the Canonical EXI.
> The document was previously published as a Candidate Recommendation on 03 November 2016.
> 
> 
> Document Title:
> ---------------
>      Canonical EXI
> 
> 
> Document URI:
> -------------
>      Editor's copy is located at:
>      http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html
> 
> 
> Abstract
> --------
>      Any EXI document is part of a set of EXI documents that are logically
>      equivalent within an application context, but which vary in physical
>      representation based on differences permitted by the [EXI Format 1.0].
>      This specification describes a relatively simple method for generating
>      a physical representation, the canonical form, of an EXI document that
>      accounts for the permissible differences. An example of the applications
>      targeted by this specification is one that needs to guarantee non-repudiation
>      using XML Signature yet allows certain flexibility for intermediaries to
>      reconstitute the documents before they reach final destination without
>      breaking the signatures. Note that two documents may have differing
>      canonical forms yet still be equivalent in a given context based on more
>      elaborate application-specific equivalence rules which is out of scope of
>      this specification.
>      http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html#abstract
> 
> 
> Status of the document
> ----------------------
>      http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html#status
> 
> 
> Record of the WG's decision to request advancement
> --------------------------------------------------
>      Decision was made during the telecon on 2018-04-16.
>      https://www.w3.org/2018/04/16-exi-minutes.html#item01
> 
> 
> Report of important changes to the document
> -------------------------------------------
>      Changes are enumerated in Changes section:
>      http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html#N68143
> 
> 
> Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>      There is no requirement document. However, the Working Group
>      received reviews from users of the EXI specification.
> 
>      It is also worth mentioning that ISO/IEC 15118 (V2G CI) standard
>      is referencing this specification for use in the V2G communication
>      interface. The use of EXI in V2G, and the desire therein for
>      canonical form of EXI originally constituted the motivation behind
>      starting to work on this document.
> 
> 
> Evidence that dependencies with other groups were met (or not)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>      The only dependency is on the EXI specification itself.
> 
> 
> Evidence that the document has received wide review
> ---------------------------------------------------
>      It received 3 external comments from 2 organizations since CR.
>      One of the 2 organizations has a Canonical EXI implementation.
>      Those three comments were all processed as issues (please see below section for issues list).
> 
>      It also received 2 internal comments. Those are listed below.
>      https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-exi/2018Jan/0003.html
>      https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-exi/2018Feb/0001.html
> 
>      They are the result of careful reviews involving implementation efforts.
> 
> 
> Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
> -------------------------------------------------
>      No new issues have been raised from outside the WG.
> 
>      The issues raised within the WG have been processed with the expected
>      due process in resolving issues among group members.
> 
>      ISSUE-120: Canonical EXI should use XSD 1.1 date and time types intead of those of XSD 1.0
>      https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/exi/issues/120
> 
>      ISSUE-121: Canonical EXI needs clarification on how to canonicalize dateTime values
>      https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/exi/issues/121
> 
>      ISSUE-122: DateTime Canonicalization should preserve seconds field
>      https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/exi/issues/122
> 
> 
> Objections:
> -----------
>      None.
> 
> 
> Implementation information:
> ---------------------------
>      The WG developed test cases tailored to address each feature of Canonical EXI
>      Candidate Recommendation.
> 
>      Currently, there are implementations available from two working group
>      member organizations, and one from non-member organization.
> 
>      For each feature, the WG demonstrated two implementations interoperate,
>      and produced an implementation report.
>      https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/implementation-report-c14n/
>      In addition, a non-member organization reported that a third implementation
>      successfully interoperates with the other two implementations.
> 
>      There is not an optional feature in Canonical EXI.
> 
>      The tests thoroughly cover the specification. The coverage of the test
>      was reviewed carefully by members.
> 
> 
> Patent disclosures
> ------------------
>      No patent disclosures were made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Takuki Kamiya
> Fujitsu Laboratories of America
> 
Received on Friday, 20 April 2018 19:50:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 20 April 2018 19:50:50 UTC