Re: C14N 1.1 comment on xml:base fixup wording and example

The XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG just resolved that it
is satisfied with this resolution of its comments.

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






On 2007-12-11 17:06:06 -0500, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> From: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> Cc: XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>,
> 	www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:06:06 -0500
> Subject: C14N 1.1 comment on xml:base fixup wording and example
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
> 
> Thomas et al.,
> 
> At 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
> 07Oct/0000
> you sent a comment to the C14N 1.1 comment list that 
> included the following issue:
> 
> Appendix A was found to be complex to the point of being
> unimplementable.
> 
> 
> We have replaced the algorithm in Appendix A with a list 
> of examples and have done some rewording in the prose of 
> section 3.2 (as suggested by the XML Security Specifications 
> Maintenance WG) to explain the algorithm.
> 
> For the purposes of the Disposition of Comments, do you accept
> this resolution of your comment?
> 
> Please reply to the www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
> as soon as feasible so that we can complete our DoC.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> paul
> 
> Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 14:13:35 UTC