- From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:40:39 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:00:09PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > Attendees > --------- Awfully sorry I forgot *again* to call :-( > Henry: we should try to see if some of the major vendors actually > implement the C14N spec or if they only copy xml:lang and xml:space. libxml2/xmlsec implementation is "per the spec" i.e. any attribute in the XML namespace unfortunately :-( > Richard: and see if they do xml:base wrong. That too, yes. > Paul: I'm a little concerned that we're thinking about picking up C14N. > > John: if we try to fix C14N, we may find ourselves in the same > position as we are with XML 1.1. yes it's a loose-loose situation :-( > ACTION: Henry to raise this issue with the TAG. > > Norm, Henry, Richard, Dmitry prefer xml:id > > John prefers xmlid I favor xml:id . If the TAG say we are stuck, I could live with xmlid though, but I'm not really happy about this. > Paul is a little hard pressed to choose. Worried about restricting > the xml: namespace. Leans towards xml:id but there's a cost there. Sorry again for missing the meeting I really need to set-up an agenda or something :-( Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ |
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 17:40:58 UTC