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

Paul

Yes, the intent is to replace Appendix A with the informational table  
along with the introductory sentence.

We have not yet confirmed the implementations regarding the red-line  
but I wanted to get the material available as soon as possible for  
comment and review.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Nov 20, 2007, at 1:02 PM, ext Grosso, Paul wrote:

>
>> -----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 23:03:26 UTC