W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org > August 1999

Re: XML Canonicalization Requirements

From: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:51:37 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <199908021353.JAA15144@www10.w3.org>
To: www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org, w3c i18n ig <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Sorry for the delay (caused by RSI).

Unicode 3.0 is imminent. Any canonicalization and/or normalization 
will need to be based on it.

Regards

Misha



> This in response to your comments on the XML C14N WD.
> It went to the WG, and bounced going to you, so we will see.
> Here is the message:
> 
> I don't know what is with the list, as far as I could tell
> it seemed to be in place. I have some comments below. Also,
> I am forwarding this to the WG so this will not be forgotten.
> 
> --
> Joel A. Nava                  (408)536-6209
> Adobe Systems, Inc.         jnava@adobe.com
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Misha Wolf [mailto:m_wolf%AM_REDMS%REC@mr.rit.reuters.com]
> > Sent: None
> > To: www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: XML Canonicalization Requirements
> > 
> > 
> > The following review of:
> > 
> >     Document title : XML Canonicalization Requirements
> >     Location       : http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-canonical-req
> >     Document date  : 1999-06-05
> > 
> > was carried out by the W3C I18N WG and IG.  Any response 
> > should be sent to 
> > the w3c-i18n-ig list.
> > 
> > 1.  Section 2, Design Principles and Scope
> >     --------------------------------------
> > 
> >     Bullet 8 mentions "both use cases".  Where are these use 
> > cases described?
> 
> Somewhere in Patagonia? Man I don't know how I missed this. Or,
> maybe I removed it by accidents. The WG had decided to support
> C14N for Processor Conformance, and for the support of Digital
> Signatures in XML.
> 
> > 2.  Section 3, Requirements
> >     -----------------------
> > 
> >     Bullet 3 states:
> > 
> >        Canonicalization shall produce byte comparable forms 
> > of characters 
> >        defined by Unicode [Unicode] to be equivalent.
> > 
> >     Surely all byte values are "comparable".  Isn't the usual phrase 
> >     something like "byte identical".
> 
> Comparable is not exactly a precise term. Thanks for catching this.
> 
> > 3.  Section 3, Requirements
> >     -----------------------
> > 
> >     The above bullet contains the reference "[Unicode]" which 
> > is later 
> >     defined to be Unicode v2.  Strictly speaking, you will 
> > have to refer to 
> >     character equivalence as defined by a precise version of 
> > the Unicode 
> >     Standard, which we assume will be Unicode v3.
> 
> Good point. I believe we have to go with v2 because we are trying
> to get this done pretty quickly. When do you expect v3 to be
> publicly available.
> 
> > Misha Wolf
> > W3C I18N WG Chair
> > 
> 
> --
> Joel A. Nava                  (408)536-6209
> Adobe Systems, Inc.         jnava@adobe.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender,
except  where  the  sender  specifically  states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
Received on Monday, 2 August 1999 09:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 December 2006 18:08:08 GMT