- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 19:38:21 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 10:30 9/7/2000 -0700, John Boyer wrote: >In the Xpath transform text, may I ask you to replace the phrase > >"used in XSLT template matching" >with >"used in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#ref-XSLT">XSLT</a>" Ok. Other comments on the merge of my Editors' copy and your proposal [1], keep in mind I'm desperately trying to keep this specification from growing much more! <smile> 1. In 4.3.3.1 I thought we said we didn't need the extra XSLT element, instead a proper <stylesheet> element should be included? (Though I honestly don't remember so I made the change and rewrapped it). 2. I'm less than comfortable with the Base64 [2] and Minimal [3] changes as it adds a lot of text and introduces confusion with respect XPath and comments. These are supposed to be the _simple_ transforms. a. Minimal: "This algorithm requires as input the octet stream of the resource to be processed. However, the actual input to this algorithm may be an XPath node-set (or a sufficiently functional replacement implemented by the application). " I don't understand, does it take octects only or not? Are you saying a Signature application can (or MUST) convert nodesets to octects? b. Base64: Again, the algorithm takes octects. If nodesets are present, who is doing the converting? Should it be restated to say, "If a Signature Application has a nodeset and wishes to base64 its encoding it must first ..." And now we have the Base64 doing XML processing by stripping away start and end tags! I'd like to keep this transform clean and simple. I'm not sure what the solution is, but if other people would like to keep these simple, we can give it more thought. 3. I'm not sure if the 6th and 7th motivating paragraphs in the XPath section aren't needed. "The primary purpose ..." I'd propose to strike them. 4. XPath section, has (old) text that says, "The function definition for here() is consistent with its definition in XPointer. It is defined as follows:" However, this isn't the case, right? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0419.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/att-0419/01-Overview.html#sec-Base-64 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/att-0419/01-Overview.html#sec-Minimal _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 19:38:26 UTC