FW: request for review of Canonical XML 1.1 (agenda request)

Glenn,

Could you produce a diff version of the C14N 1.1 that
compares our first public WD to this LC version?

Jose, Thomas,

Could you remind us just what changes were made to the
two Notes between their last publication and now?  I
have the feeling it was nothing (except perhaps a
reference or two), but could you confirm?

paul

-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, 2006 December 21 07:48
To: Grosso, Paul; Norman Walsh
Cc: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen; XML Coordination Group
Subject: Fwd: request for review of Canonical XML 1.1 (agenda request)

Paul, Norm -

As you see from the message below, some in the WS area would
find it easier to review C14n if there were a summary of what has
changed since October, if anything.  I imagine some people might
also find a summary of changes since 1.0 useful.

Any hope of either of these in some informal non-binding form?

thanks

Michael


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
> Date: 21 December 2006 6:38:28 AM MST
> To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret  
> <plh@w3.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@w3.org>, "Paul  
> Grosso  (pgrosso@ptc.com)" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> Cc: w3c-ws-cg <w3c-ws-cg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: request for review of Canonical XML 1.1 (agenda request)
>
> I did a review of the previous WDs of these documents for the WS- 
> Policy WG in Oct.  See:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/0142
>
>
>
> The Canonical XML Last Call WD and its companion documents were  
> announced in:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006OctDec/0109.html
>
>
>
> I note that none of these documents include change logs or anything  
> in the Status section to indicate how they have been changed since  
> their previous publication.  Diff versions are also not mentioned.  
> In addition there is no reference to any kind of issues list that  
> might be used to determine what changes were made.
>
>
>
> It would greatly help the WS-Policy WG to know what changes have  
> been made to the Canonical XML 1.1 Last Call WD since the previous  
> publication.  If no substantive changes have been made then I  
> anticipate my previous review would indicate that the WS-Policy WG  
> will not have any Last Call comments.
>
>
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
>
>
>
>
> From: w3c-ws-cg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ws-cg-request@w3.org] On  
> Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
> Sent: December 21, 2006 8:10 AM
> To: Philippe Le Hegaret
> Cc: w3c-ws-cg; w3c-ws-cg-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: request for review of Canonical XML 1.1 (agenda request)
>
>
>
>
> I'll add it to the agenda for the call on the 3rd.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
>
> Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
> Sent by: w3c-ws-cg-request@w3.org
>
> 12/20/2006 04:02 PM
>
> To
>
> w3c-ws-cg <w3c-ws-cg@w3.org>
>
> cc
>
> W3C Web Services Coordination Group <w3c-ws-cg@w3.org>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: request for review of Canonical XML 1.1 (agenda request)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The deadline for comments is April 30, 2007. Any group interested in
> this? WS-Policy?
>
> Philippe
>
>
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 12:55 -0700, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > as you may know, version 1.1 of Canonical XML has now gone
> > to Last Call:  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220
> >
> > The XML Core Working Group and the XML Coordination Group
> > have asked me to request that any Web Services group with any
> > interest in, or expertise in, canonicalization or signatures please
> > review the last call version of this specification.  The main change
> > is, as I understand it, the removal of the error in version 1.0 of
> > the canonicalization spec, which called for all attributes in the  
> XML
> > namespace to be inherited (which is correct for xml:lang, for
> > example, but not for xml:id).
> >
> > Can this please be placed on the agenda of the next Web
> > Services CG call?  I'd like to get commitments from one or more
> > Web Services groups to review the spec before the end of
> > Last Call.  Thank you.
> >
> > --C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> >
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 15:04:25 UTC