FW: FW: FW: Last Call for XML Signature 2.0, Canonical XML 2.0 and XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0 ( LC-2489)

-----Original Message-----
From: frederick.hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 2011 June 14 14:53
To: Grosso@jessica.w3.org; Grosso, Paul
Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: FW: Last Call for XML Signature 2.0, Canonical XML 2.0
and XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0 ( LC-2489)


 Dear Grosso, Paul ,

The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on
the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Signature Streaming Profile
of
XPath 1.0 published on 21 Apr 2011. Thank you for having taken the time
to
review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-xmlsec@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 28 June 2011. In
case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution
for
or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus
cannot
be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal
objection
which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of
this
document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the XML Security Working Group,
Thomas Roessler
W3C Staff Contact

 1.
http://www.w3.org/mid/9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA02EE3A07@HQ-MAIL9.
ptcnet.ptc.com
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xmldsig-xpath-20110421/


=====

Your comment on :
> XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-xpath/ In general I don't
> think it is good idea to create yet another XPath subset.
Proliferation
> of XPath subsetting prevents using standalone XPath libraries when
> implementing various subsets of the language. If streaming is
necessary
> then effort should be derived from XSLT 3.0 which provides streaming
> facilities.


Working Group Resolution (LC-2489):
The XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0 makes sense for the
reasons stated in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0013.html and
should continue on the Recommendation track.

----

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 20:51:07 UTC