- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:29 -0500
- 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: Thanks. > > (8) Clarify that table to be added to appendix A, as presented in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/att-0050/ Apendix_20060625.html 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? paul
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 18:03:54 UTC