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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Marcy
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 May 08 14:22
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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/20
06Dec/0001
> 
> 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. 

I think this is addressed in my reply to Joseph.  
See also [3] below.

> 
> [2] 
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
06Dec/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. 

More examples are always nice, but I think we can consider
this comment addressed.

> 
> [3] 
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
06Dec/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. 

I think we can say that Joseph has accepted how we addressed
C14N 1.1 given our charter.  I think [1] and [3] require no
further changes to the spec.

> 
> [4] 
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
07Jan/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. 

We are addressing this in our latest draft.

> 
> [5] 
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
07May/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. 
 
We will discuss these in our upcoming call, but once we 
have WG agreement, we will be able to say we'd addressed
these (mostly editorial) issues.

Thanks, Glenn, we appear to be in pretty good shape with
respect to the comments we got.

(You will still need to generate an actual DoC document.)

paul

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 20:12:48 UTC