W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: References in XML Signature PER

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:04:30 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0805061504s75be915dga1e796e9029ee7a4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "XMLSec XMLSec" <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>, "ext Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>
Thanks, that should help

But does it mean that all other references are normative ?

Regards,

Mohamed

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Frederick Hirsch <
frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> Mohamed
> Thanks for providing the information regarding the Unicode reference in
> the XML Signature, Second Edition PER.
>
> We discussed this issue on today's working group call and came to the
> conclusion that we should remove the Unicode reference from the document
> [1]. This should remove the possibility of any misinterpretation of the
> reference and not raise any false implications.
>
> The rationale is that the reference is not normative, not referred to in
> the document, and not very precise as it refers to a web page and may be
> misinterpreted. The Working Group felt that the best approach is to allow
> the XML specification to refer to Unicode appropriately.
>
> This decision by the working group should close this issue.
>
> If you have any concerns please respond to this email including the
> public-xmlsec-maintwg mail address as a recipient. If we hear nothing we
> will assume that the response is acceptable, but would prefer
> an acknowledgment that this is acceptable.
>
> Thank you
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Chair XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#item08
>
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 4:27 AM, ext Innovimax W3C wrote:
>
> Sure, the problem is consistency between the Unicode version Referenced in
> XML 1.0 Specification and the Unicode version referenced directly in the
> spec
>
> Indeed, XML 1.0 Specification Fourth Edition references Unicode 2 AND
> Unicode 3.2, and also ISO/IEC 10646 as normative reference
>
> For XML Signature, there is no distinction between normative reference and
> non normative, so it is assumed that all are normative !!
>
> Which imply that
>
> for example the reference to UAX #15 (called NFC TR15) is a bit old (1999)
> but is consistent with Unicode 3.2
>
> but your reference to Unicode is not sufficiently precise (you're pointing
> to the home page) which could lead to problem if someone wants to points to
> recent Unicode version
>
> So may be the solution is just to split reference between, normative and
> informative
>
> Regards,
>
> Mohamed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Frederick Hirsch <
> frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > I  believe updating an  XML 1.0, Second Edition [1] reference to XML 1.0
> > Fourth Edition [2] in XML Signature, Second Edition PER [3] may be useful
> > and appropriate.
> >
> > (1) It appears that the Fourth Edition is mostly editorial changes for
> > clarity, as well as incorporation of errata [4]. One of these errata
> > corresponds to changes in XML Signature Second Edition, an update of the URI
> > reference from RFC 2732 to RFC 3986.
> > "This fourth edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to
> > readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated errata
> > (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata) to the Third
> > Edition of XML 1.0, dated 4 February 2004. In addition, the markup
> > introduced in the third edition, to clarify when prescriptive keywords are
> > used in the formal sense defined in [IETF RFC 2119], has been modified to
> > better match the intent of [IETF RFC 2119]"
> >
> > (2) Likewise XML 1.0 Third edition incorporates editorial changes for
> > clarity and incorporation of errata [5].
> >
> > "This third edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to
> > readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated errata
> > (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata) to the Second
> > Edition of XML 1.0, dated 6 October 2000. In addition, markup has been
> > introduced on a significant portion of the prescriptions of the
> > specification, clarifying when prescriptive keywords such as must, should
> > and may are used in the formal sense defined in [IETF RFC 2119]"
> >
> > Do members of this group, in particular those involved with the XML Core
> > WG, believe it would be appropriate to update the XML 1.0 reference in XML
> > Signature, Second Edition to the Fourth Edition of XML, and would doing so
> > be viewed as editorial or a more substantive change?
> >
> > Would such a change have an impact on implementors?
> >
> > It may be that XML Signature is mostly orthogonal to those changes, in
> > particular since the XML Fourth edition does not represent a new version of
> > XML,  and thus this could be treated as editorial
> >
> > (3) A similar issue may also apply to Namespaces  in XML 1.0 [6] which
> > have been updated to Namespaces  in XML 1.0, Second Edition [7], where the
> > errata includes primarily  the deprecation of relative URIs in namespace
> > declarations [8]. What are thoughts on updating this reference, treating it
> > as editorial?
> >
> > It seems these changes are editorial in nature. Do you have insights or
> > views on this?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand that the unicode reference needs updating, any
> > thoughts on that reference?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
> >
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/
> >
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmldsig-core-20080326/
> >
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xml-20060614/
> >
> > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/
> >
> > [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
> >
> > [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
> >
> > [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#errata10
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > we've received one comment about XML Signature PER which requests a
> > > review of the references, specifically XML 2nd Edition and Unicode.
> > >
> > > Forwarded with permission.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  +33-4-89063488
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2008-04-06 13:10:01 +0000, WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax+
> > > w3c@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: "WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax+w3c@gmail.com<innovimax%2Bw3c@gmail.com>
> > > > "
> > > >        <webmaster@w3.org>
> > > > To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com <innovimax%2Bw3c@gmail.com>,
> > > >        team-security-activity-proposal-review@w3.org
> > > > Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:10:01 +0000
> > > > Subject: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: XML Signature Syntax
> > > > and
> > > >        Processing  (Second Edition)?? is W3C Proposed
> > > > Recommendation'
> > > > Reply-To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com <innovimax%2Bw3c@gmail.com>
> > > > List-Id: <team-security-activity-proposal-review.w3.org>
> > > > X-Spam-Level:
> > > > Archived-At:
> > > >        <
> > > > http://www.w3.org/mid/wbs-f743d3cf28a5f52bede4713530dde6b5@cgi.w3.o
> > > >        rg>
> > > > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for
> > > > Review:
> > > > XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)
> > > >  is W3C Proposed Recommendation' (Advisory Committee) for INNOVIMAX
> > > > by
> > > > Mohamed ZERGAOUI.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the "XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)"
> > > > specification, the reviewer  suggests changes, and only supports
> > > > publication as a Recommendation if the changes are adopted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Additional comments about the specification:
> > > >   The references are almost all out of synch and may introduce
> > > > burden
> > > > because of misinterpretation, mainly due to references to old
> > > > Unicode
> > > > publication directly and to XML second edition.
> > > >
> > > > I ask that all reference should be carefully weighted to not
> > > > introduce
> > > > more problems than solutions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The reviewer's organization:
> > > >   - produces products addressed by this specification
> > > >
> > > > Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xmlsigper2008/ until 2008-04-30.
> > > >
> > > >  Regards,
> > > >
> > > >  The Automatic WBS Mailer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 
>
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 22:05:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:44 UTC