W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2007

RE: v3 proposed changes to C14N11 (sections 2.4, 3.8, Appendix A and xml:id)

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302097B71E0@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 November 20 9:36
> To: Grosso, Paul; gmarcy@us.ibm.com
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; XMLSec XMLSec; XML-Core Member; Thomas Roessler
> Subject: v3 proposed changes to C14N11 (sections 2.4, 3.8, 
> Appendix A and xml:id)
> I've attached a revised red-line and clean version of proposed  
> changes to C14N11, incorporating the following changes from the red- 
> line we discussed at the F2F:


> (8) Clarify that table to be added to appendix A, as presented in  

You say "added to" above, but I thought we decided to delete
the 3986-ish algorith from appendix A entirely, as your
"clean" version seems to imply.

Am I correct to understand that you are suggesting (as I
believe we decided at the f2f) to replace the current
Appendix A with your suggested introductory sentence
and then the table (but not the algorithm) seen at the
URL you cite above?


Also, per our f2f minutes:

 Then we noticed a problem in the merging process (which
 produces the input to the "Appendix A process"): where
 'Base' argument to join-uris ends with "..". 3986 merge
 will discard that ".." which is wrong.

 ACTION to Thomas and Frederick: Get implementors to run
 this new test case and report the results.

Am I correct that your latest suggested wording and examples
address this issue?

Any reports from implementors on this issue?

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 18:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:35 UTC