- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:22:18 -0400
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, konrad.lanz@iaik.tugraz.at, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
I think we should go with the second option in #1, so that the reader is at least aware of the situation. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Aug 7, 2007, at 10:05 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > > I think the two alternatives we are discussing are: > > 1. Keep the following phrase: > >> Support of the xpointer() scheme [XPointer-xpointer] beyond the >> minimal usage discussed in this section is discouraged. > > Possibly with a change as suggested during the call: > >> [XPointer-xpointer] is in Working Draft status as of publication >> of this edition of XML Signature. Therefore, support of the >> xpointer() scheme beyond the minimal usage discussed in this >> section is discouraged. > > 2. Drop this section completely, since it is felt to unduly > deprecate existing implementations. > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> >
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 17:23:07 UTC