Re: Normative reference to URI spec

The revised text in the editors draft of XML Signature in Section The Reference Processing Model
[1] says

"In this specification, a 'same-document' reference is defined as a  
URI-Reference that does not contain a URI. [URI]"

This is very clear in the context of section 4 of RFC 2396 but may  
not be so obvious in the context of RFC 3986, yet another related  
proposal is to remove reference to RFC 2396 and replace it with a  
reference to RFC 3986.

Thus I propose the following revision of this sentence:

"In this specification, a 'same-document' reference is defined as a  
URI-Reference that does not contain a URI, in other words a hash sign  
('#') followed by a fragment identifier [URI]."

In addition I suggest we change the References section to replace the  
reference for URI with

RFC 3986. Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax. T.  
Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter. January 2005. http://

and replace "RFC 2396" with "RFC 3986" in section (2 places).

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:51 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Section, Reference Processing Model
> ReferenceProcessingModel
> As an aside, there's some language in that references the
> URI spec for the definition of a "same-document URI-Reference."
> Unfortunately, the meaning of that has changed between the URI spec
> that is referenced in xmldsig-core and the currently valid one (RFC
> 2396 vs. RFC 3986): Same-document references are now (in RFC 3986)
> defined in terms of the base URI; the purely syntactic definition
> ("URI references with an empty URI", i.e., just a fragment
> identifier) from RFC 2396 is no longer there.
> However, XML Signature relies on that syntactic definition and
> actually replays it in the specification text to a large extent. I'd
> therefore propose to explicitly say that, for the purposes of
> xmldsig-core, we mean a URI Reference with no URI part (thereby
> replaying the syntactic definition from 2396); the current editor's
> draft includes that change.
> We can then go on to bump the normative reference from 2396 to 3986.
> Regards,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <>

Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 22:46:53 UTC