[fwd] RE: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for C14N 1.1 (Appendix) (from: pgrosso@ptc.com)

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

----- Forwarded message from "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> -----

From: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
To: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:28:20 -0400
Subject: RE: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for C14N 1.1 (Appendix)
List-Id: <public-xml-core-wg.w3.org>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020789E9D5@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5


Thanks for your early CR testing work.

As far as the wording in the appendix, we have gone around 
on the details of this wording many times already.  I am not 
willing to make any more changes here before we go to CR. 

Instead, we'll consider your comments as CR feedback
and address them when we resolve CR comments.

Please forward a copy of your message (and attachments)
to the www-xml-canonicalization-comments list so that
we will have it archived.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konrad Lanz [mailto:Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at] 
> Sent: Saturday, 2007 May 26 21:05
> To: Grosso, Paul; Thomas Roessler; Frederick Hirsch
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg; public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for 
> C14N 1.1 (Appendix)
> Hi Thomas, Paul and Frederick
> I actually found some time this weekend to make preparations 
> for C14n1.1 
> interoperability test and created two test implementations (taking 
> different approaches) for the modified remove_dot_segments 
> function and 
> identified several problems. (If someone is interested in 
> detail one can 
> try the test cases in the attached HTML file).
> However I think I was successful in addressing all of them and thus 
> updated Appendix A in a manner that would deal with the issues.
> As I do not have a detailed enough knowledge about the 
> processes in W3C 
> and I'm unsure weather it's a good time to bring this up now.
> I'd like to ask how to proceed on this or if I shall rather 
> wait until 
> the actual testing starts?
> Nevertheless I just wanted to let you know ASAP.
> Also please find a reworded version of the c14n11 Appendix including 
> several test cases in the attachment.
> Further in the concourse of these initial tests I also found 
> a potential 
> ambiguity in the merge_path function in rfc3986
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.3
> Which says: " i.e., excluding any characters after the 
> right-most "/" in 
> the base URI path"
> However I don't think this applies if a base URI has two 
> trailing dots 
> (assuming the optional normalization mentioned in the second 
> paragraph 
> of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.1 was not 
> performed).
> So I'm unsure what would happen to an inherited xml:base URI 
> reference 
> of the form "../.." to be joined with a URI reference of the 
> form "..". 
> For the least surprising output I would bet on "../../../" as 
> an output 
> and I think this would also deserve a mention in section 2.4 
> of C14n 1.1 .
> Again I'm also unsure if the timing is good to bring this up ...
> I'm looking forward to your responses ...
> regards
> Konrad

----- End forwarded message -----

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 14:35:34 UTC