Re: Minor comments for Last Call drafts of 20011018

On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:08, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
> Yes, but you can just remove "e" from the text as "Prefix and namespace
> name of each namespace that is in scope for the first element node in
> <em>X</em>."

e is removed.

> >> >Name and value of each entity [is this the formal definion of entity
> >> > from xml1.0 or something else -JR] that is effective for the XML
> >> > document causing X.
> >I think you mean parameter entity then?
> No, I mean not parameter entity but general entity, especially parsed
> entity.

This still leaves me confused: the entity part and the "effective". I 
expect the "parsing context" is a DOM specific term, is there something we 
can reference there?

> >> You added to the above text the EncryptedKey element being identified.
> >> Because this transform does nothing for the element, I believe it does
> >> not make sense.
> >
> >I've lost the context for this issue. You are advocating that we remove
>
> the
>
> >XPointer text, right?
>
> No, rather, I advocate we should support XPointer.  But, I believe we
> don't have to support all of the XPointer, like XML Signature.

Ok.

The REQUIRED URI attribute value of the dcrpt:Except element MUST be a 
non-empty same-document URI reference [URI] (i.e., a number sign ('#') 
character followed by a fragment identifier) or XPointer expression (as 
profiled by [XML-Signature, Section 4.3.3.2]) and identify an 
enc:EncryptedData or enc:EncryptedKey element.



-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/