Re: Appendix A of C14N 1.1 [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 October 10]

Paul,

I have brought your message to the attendance of the XML Security
Specs maintenance WG.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>






On 2007-10-15 17:01:58 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> From: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:01:58 -0400
> Subject: Appendix A of C14N 1.1 [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 October 10]
> List-Id: <public-xml-core-wg.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> Archived-At:
> 	<http://www.w3.org/mid/CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30209087D69@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> > Sent: Wednesday, 2007 October 10 11:16
> > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> 
> > > 3.  C14N 
> > > 
> > > The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621
> 
> > Interoperability testing was performed on 27 September.  
> > A report of the outcome is at:
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
> 07Oct/0000
> 
> > Point 3 complains about appendix A being too difficult to 
> > understand, partly because it uses 3986 language which is
> > also hard to understand.
> > 
> > We have three choices:
> > 
> > 1.  say hard to understand isn't wrong, so leave it as is.
> > 2.  delete appendix A altogether, possibly adding to the
> >     main text if there is anything "normative" only mentioned
> >     in the existing appendix.
> > 3.  rewrite appendix A.
> > 
> > ACTION to Konrad:  Send us pointers to suggestions for rewriting
> > appendix A.
> > 
> > One such pointer is 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Sep/0017
> 
> I am really not excited about working further on Appendix A.
> This business of trying to describe xml:base fixup has already
> been a big time sink, and every time we make some changes, more
> need to be made later.  I worry we may never come to closure.
> 
> I am not at all happy about trying to use the wording in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Sep/0017
> I have no reason to believe that wording is accurate or that it 
> will be easier to come to agreement with that as the starting point.
> 
> Starting with 3986 seems the safest thing to do, and appendix A
> represents our best attempt at that so far.
> 
> My preferred solution is to say that, if there are no errors pointed
> out in Appendix A, then we leave it as is.
> 
> My next preference is to attempt to describe the changes from the
> 3986 algorithm in prose in section 2.4--because currently it seems
> clear that we have not described xml:base fixup fully in section 2.4,
> so we cannot just delete appendix A--and then delete appendix A.
> 
> I'm happy to entertain other ideas if they are presented in email
> before our next telcon AND they make forward progress in closing
> this issue. 
> 
> paul
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 22:11:15 UTC