Re: C14N 1.1 comments [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 May 9]

> Glenn,
> 
> Which, if any of these, does your latest draft take into account?
> 
> paul

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2006Dec/0001 
(maybe)

This was the note from Joseph Reagle where it wasn't clear that we were 
not
addressing all of the historical issues with C14N, just a small specific 
set
of new issues.  Paul sent a lengthy response which I think, but am not 
positive,
has addressed his comments, though I'm not sure that they were ever 
applicable
to the draft under review in any case.

[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2006Dec/0004

This is a request from Aleksey Sanin to add examples.  Since [5] included 
such
an example I believe this issue may already be addressed if the group 
feels feel
that this example is sufficient.

[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2006Dec/0006

This is the response from Joseph Reagle to Paul's response.  I'm not sure 
exactly
what action to take to address this final concern and would ask the group 
for
suggestions.

[4] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007Jan/0001

This was a question from Philippe Le Hegaret on the relationship between 
C14N 1.1
and XML 1.1.  As indicated in my previous note, there was already a 
suggestion
made in [5] to address this issue as well.

[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007May/0000

This was the note from Frederick Hirsch with several suggested 
improvements to
the draft.  I have incorporated all of them and ask the group to look at 
these
suggestions and comment if there are objections to accepting any of them.

Regards,
Glenn