- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:05:49 +0200
- To: Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
On 2007-08-21 14:58:57 +0200, Konrad Lanz wrote: > we can live with the text as proposed by Thomas with a small change. > The original edition of this specification [XMLDSIG-2002] > referenced the XPointer Candidate Recommendation > [XPTR-2001]. That Candidate Recommendation has been > superseded by the [xptr-fwk], [xptr-xmlns] and > [xptr-element] Recommendations, and -- at the time of this > edition -- the [xptr-xpointer] Working Draft. Therefore, > the use of the xpointer() scheme beyond the usage > discussed in this section is discouraged. > > s/"support of xpointer()"/"the use of xpointer()"/ > s/"minimal usage"/"useage"/ Works for me. > We however would still like to mention that we would appreciate > some remark making verifiers aware of the fact the there are > existing signatures in deployed systems making use of the > optional xpointer() scheme. > We think the text could benefit a change to the first sentence. > The original edition of this specification [XMLDSIG-2002] > referenced the XPointer Candidate Recommendation > [XPTR-2001] and some implementations support it optionally. > We think this would also add clarity. I'd rather not go down that route. Among other things, it isn't clear to me that there are actually *multiple* broad implementations that support it. Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 13:05:51 UTC