- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:32:07 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul > Sent: Wednesday, 2007 July 18 10:51 > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 July 18 > XML Sec Maint WG and xpointer > ----------------------------- > The XML Sec Maint WG is working on a PER for digital signatures. > The Rec references the xpointer() XPointer scheme normatively, > referencing the failed CR. > > There are no good solutions. We recommend they reference the > latest version (the WD) and explain in text what implementations > should do. > > ACTION to Paul: Send email to the XML Sec Maint WG with our > recommendation. Done, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2007Jul/0019 (which is a response to a thread that had been ongoing on the XML CG list). One other thing we did not discuss on the call but that I discussed in the above referenced email is the erroneous claim in the digital signatures spec that use of XPointer implies loss of comments. > > Philippe says the SML WG is trying to reference xpointer(). See > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.htm > l?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 > We should tell them not to do that. > > ACTION to Paul: Send email to the SML group telling them that > they are normatively referencing a WD that is dead. Done, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jul/0069 paul
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 16:37:02 UTC