- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:19:42 -0400
- To: ext Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
> I think the C14N 1.1 algs also should be listed in Section 6.1. Agreed. Should change Canonicalization 1. Required Canonical XML (omits comments) http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 2. Recommended Canonical XML with Comments http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#WithComments to Canonicalization 1. Required Canonical XML 1.0 (omits comments) http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 2. Recommended Canonical XML 1.0 with Comments http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#WithComments 3. Required Canonical XML 1.1 (omits comments) http://@@ 4. Recommended Canonical XML 1.1 (with Comments) http://@@ --- Added 1.0 to #1 and #2 and add #3 and #4. URIs TBD. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:12 PM, ext Sean Mullan wrote: > > I think the C14N 1.1 algs also should be listed in Section 6.1. > > I forgot if we discussed this in a past meeting, but weren't we > also going to add the Exclusive C14N algorithms to section 6.1/6.5 > (Canonicalization Algorithms)? > > --Sean > > Thomas Roessler wrote: >> I've made changes corresponding to Paul's proposals in the latest >> iteration of the editor's draft: >> XML-Signature Syntax and Processing >> Editor's Draft $Date: 2007/07/26 16:06:49 $ >> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/ >> Specifically: >> - added "Support of the xpointer() scheme [XPointer-xpointer] >> beyond the >> minimal usage discussed in this section is discouraged." to the >> insert in section 4.3.3.2, where the behavior of the xpointer() >> idioms we need is defined >> - Replaced the duplicate definition of these XPointers in section >> 4.3.3.3 by a reference to 4.3.3.2 >> - Moved the definition of same-document URI references in 4.3.3.2 >> out of a parenthesis into a separate paragraph. >> While writing this, it occurs to me that the reference to the >> xpointer() Working Draft that I meant to insert is still missing. >> Doing that in a moment. > >
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 21:20:03 UTC