W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org > June 2007

[Fwd: Re: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for C14N 1.1 (Appendix)]

From: Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:08:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4663F2C2.7070003@iaik.tugraz.at>
To: www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
FYI, the following will be treated together with the feedback on C14n 
1.1 CR ...

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	Re: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for C14N 1.1 
(Appendix)
Datum: 	Sun, 27 May 2007 04:04:52 +0200
Von: 	Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
An: 	Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, 
Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: 	public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, 
public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Referenzen: 
<CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020770E48A@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com> 
<f5bejl78ugo.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk> <465456C3.4090901@iaik.tugraz.at>



Hi Thomas, Paul and Frederick

I actually found some time this weekend to make preparations for C14n1.1 
interoperability test and created two test implementations (taking 
different approaches) for the modified remove_dot_segments function and 
identified several problems. (If someone is interested in detail one can 
try the test cases in the attached HTML file).

However I think I was successful in addressing all of them and thus 
updated Appendix A in a manner that would deal with the issues.

As I do not have a detailed enough knowledge about the processes in W3C 
and I'm unsure weather it's a good time to bring this up now.
I'd like to ask how to proceed on this or if I shall rather wait until 
the actual testing starts?

Nevertheless I just wanted to let you know ASAP.

Also please find a reworded version of the c14n11 Appendix including 
several test cases in the attachment.

Further in the concourse of these initial tests I also found a potential 
ambiguity in the merge_path function in rfc3986
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.3

Which says: " i.e., excluding any characters after the right-most "/" in 
the base URI path"

However I don't think this applies if a base URI has two trailing dots 
(assuming the optional normalization mentioned in the second paragraph 
of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.1 was not performed).

So I'm unsure what would happen to an inherited xml:base URI reference 
of the form "../.." to be joined with a URI reference of the form "..". 
For the least surprising output I would bet on "../../../" as an output 
and I think this would also deserve a mention in section 2.4 of C14n 1.1 .

Again I'm also unsure if the timing is good to bring this up ...

I'm looking forward to your responses ...

regards
Konrad


Konrad Lanz schrieb:
> Henry S. Thompson schrieb:
>> [...]
>>> A review version showing the differences between C14N 1.0 is at
>>> http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509-diff.htm
>>>     
> The diff looks funny in the appendix as it is intermixed with the 
> removed Acknowledgements.
> Is there a way to make this more readable ...
>
> Konrad
>

-- 
Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 873 5547
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz
http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at

Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate):
https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm





Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 11:14:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 June 2007 11:14:11 GMT