DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for C14N 1.1

Here is my first draft CR request for C14N 1.1.

Comments, please, especially from Henry.

I made up the exit criteria, the proposed pub date, 
and the CR end date--comments welcome on that too.

I note that there is no requirements document.  I also
note that our current charter at
http://www.w3.org/2006/06/XML/core.html 
says almost nothing about requirements for this work.  
Our previous charter at
http://www.w3.org/2005/02/xml-core-wg-charter.html#deliverables
said:

 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.

I'm hoping the lack of clear written current requirements
isn't a problem.  We all know that the idea was to fix
the "broken inheritance model" for (some) attributes
(i.e., xml:id and xml:base) in the XML namespace and not
to do much else.

paul

------------------------------------------------
Eventually-to: 'timbl@w3.org'; 'steve@w3.org'
Evantually-cc: 'public-xml-core-wg@w3.org'; 'webreq@w3.org';
'chairs@w3.org'; 'w3t-comm@w3.org'

The XML Core WG requests publication of 
  Canonical XML 1.1
available at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509.htm
as a Candidate Recommendation.  

The URL cited above is for the most recent Member-only 
version of the specification as of 17 March 2006 but 
dated @ @@@ 2007 in anticipation of publication then.           @@@

That file is set up to be published by moving it to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509.html           @@@

C14N 1.0 was published as a Recommendation on 15 March 2001 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315.html

The C14N 1.1 specification was published on 20 December 2006
at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220/
as a Last Call Specification.  

The Last Call comments have been considered and resolved, 
and a notification of the fact sent to every commenter.  
The document being sent to CR contains the changes that 
were made to accommodate these comments.

There is a Disposition of Comments outlining the status at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/05/c14n11-wd-doc.htm

There are no outstanding objections to our resolution of
comments.

A review version showing the differences between C14N 1.0 is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509-diff.htm

The WG's decision to request publication as a Candidate 
Recommendation was taken during our f2f on                      @@@
whose minutes may be found at
@@@                                                             @@@


SCHEDULE

We propose a publication date of 2007 June 11.                  @@@

We propose that the CR period lasts from the date of publication
until 21 Septembet 2007. 


EXIT CRITERIA

The XML Core Working Group will advance the specification 
to Proposed Recommendation when the following exit criteria 
have been met:

  * There are at least two interoperable implementations 
    of the specification.

  * A minimum of three months of the CR period must have elapsed.


PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

There is no preliminary Implementation Report.


PROPOSED CR TITLE, ABSTRACT AND STATUS SECTIONS

Canonical XML 1.1

Abstract
--------
Canonical XML 1.1 is a revision to Canonical XML 1.0 to address 
issues related to inheritance of attributes in the XML namespace 
when canonicalizing document subsets, including the requirement 
not to inherit xml:id, and to treat xml:base URI path processing 
properly.

Any XML document is part of a set of XML documents that are logically 
equivalent within an application context, but which vary in physical 
representation based on syntactic changes permitted by XML 1.0 [XML] 
and Namespaces in XML [Names]. This specification describes a method 
for generating a physical representation, the canonical form, of an 
XML document that accounts for the permissible changes. Except for 
limitations regarding a few unusual cases, if two documents have the 
same canonical form, then the two documents are logically equivalent 
within the given application context. Note that two documents may have 
differing canonical forms yet still be equivalent in a given context 
based on application-specific equivalence rules for which no generalized

XML specification could account.

Canonical XML 1.1 is applicable to XML 1.0 and defined in terms of the 
XPath 1.0 data model. It is not defined for XML 1.1.

Status of this Document
-----------------------
This section describes the status of this document at the time of 
its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A 
list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this 
technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index 
at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement 
by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, 
replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is 
inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

Candidate Recommendation comments on this document are invited. 
Comments on this document are due by 30 September 2007, but earlier 
comments are expressly solicited. Comments should be sent to 
www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org which is an automatically 
archived public email list. At this time, there is no implementation 
report. A review version with differences between the 1.0 version 
highlighted is available.

This document has been produced by the W3C XML Core Working Group 
as part of the W3C XML Activity. The authors of this document are 
the members of the XML Core Working Group and invited experts from 
the Digital Signature community.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February
2004 
W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures

made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also 
includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has 
actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains 
Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with 
section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

The English version of this specification is the only normative version.


Paul Grosso and Norman Walsh, chairs of the XML Core WG.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:33:40 UTC