v2 proposed changes to C14N11 (sections 2.4, 3.8, Appendix A and xml:id) - please review

I've attached a revised red-line version of proposed changes to  
C14N11, incorporating changes for xml:id as well as previous changes.

Additional changes:

section 3.4, change id attribute of normId element to xml:id, remove  
IMPLIED ID DTD definition for id.
section 3.7 , change id attribute of e3 element to xml:id, remove  
IMPLIED ID DTD definition for id.
section 3.8 , change id attribute of e3 element to xml:id, remove  
IMPLIED ID DTD definition for id.

Can implementers please review, update test case input and run these  
tests again to check outputs?

This is the consolidated change I shall send to xml:core unless I  
hear comment before Wednesday.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:38 AM, ext Sean Mullan wrote:

>
> I believe we also agreed to change the relevant examples to use  
> xml:id and ask XML Core if they had any objections to that.
>
> --Sean
>
> Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>> These are the proposed changes to C14N11 red-line for sections  
>> 2.4, 3.8, Appendix A based on our F2F discussion.
>> Please review. If I hear no comment I will share with XML Core on  
>> Wednesday.
>> regards, Frederick
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>> Attached is a revision of the red-line for C14N11 with the  
>> following updates:
>> (1) Add "segment" to 'Append a '/' character to a trailing ".." '  
>> for 3rd sub-bullet in 5.2.4 bullet, yielding:
>> Append a '/' character to a trailing ".." segment
>> (2) Add second sub-bullet to first bullet "Perform RFC 3986..." as  
>> follows:
>> o    Replace a trailing ".." segment with "../" segment before  
>> processing.
>> (3) add bullet with the following text
>> The algorithm is modified to ensure that a combination of two  
>> xml:base attribute values that include relative path components  
>> (i.e., path components that do not begin with a '/' character)  
>> results in an attribute value that is a relative path component.
>> (4) In addition, we propose to add an example for the #3 case, but  
>> do not have that yet (action on Thomas)
>
>