C14N work [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 January 18]

[Glenn, some questions for you below.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2006 January 18 10:41
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 January 18
> 

> > 9.  C14N is listed in our charter:
> > 
> >  Canonical XML version 1.1
> > 
> >  The work on xml:id uncovered some inconsistencies
> >  in Canonical XML version 1.0 (see xml:id CR,
> >  Appendix C, "Impacts on Other Standards"). The
> >  Working Group will produce a new version of
> >  Canonical XML to address those inconsistencies,
> >  as well as others that might be discovered at a
> >  later stage.
> > 
> > We have CONSENSUS that we have been chartered to do a 1.1
> > and that we should not try to do this as an erratum.
> > 
> > We are not sure how best to do this as a 1.1.  We should try
> > to elaborate the possible ways of handling this and ask the
> > C14N community how best to go about this.  For example, if
> > we create a new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the 
> > old namespace means?  We'd like to avoid the flak we are
> > getting for XML 1.1.
> > 

>From what I can tell, we didn't really get any input on any
of the questions above.  Specifically, folks argued about a
1.0 erratum versus 1.1, but no one addressed "if we create a 
new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the old namespace 
means?"  And no one had any other suggestions on how to go
about making a C14N 1.1 that minimized problems.

Glenn, is that correct, or did we miss something? 

> > We should probably use the existing mailing list
> > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org to gather opinions.
> > 
> > Glenn posted an email to w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org explaining
> > we are doing a 1.1 and asking for how we can minimize disruption:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Dec/0001
> > 
> > There have been some responses.  
> > 
> > ACTION to Glenn [due this Wed]:  Summarize and send email 
> > to the XML Core list.
> 
> Glenn did so at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0012
> 
> The email includes a discussion on whether an erratum to C14N 1.0
> or a C14N 1.1 would be less disruptive.  There was no consensus
> among the discussants of this thread.
> 
> The XML Core WG has consensus to stick with a C14N 1.1 as chartered.
> 

Glenn,

We are assuming you still agree with a 1.1 instead of an erratum
to 1.0, correct?  Assuming so...

> Henry points out we could produce a 1.1 and use the old identifier.
> But Norm doesn't think we can do that.
> 
> We seem to be ready to produce a first WD of C14N 1.1.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Produce an actual first editor's draft of C14N 1.1.
> 

... do you accept this action item?

paul

Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:55:06 UTC