RE: comments on the XML Canonical specification

Hi Lauren,

It is harmful to some documents and specifications, but not all
documents and applications. This doesn't mean that those applications
that do not need such a dependency are wrong, which is what the current
language implies. I don't want DOM applications that do treat the prefix
as syntactic sugar (since those authors read the Namespaces Rec and
implemented it, without regard to XPath etc) to be labelled as being
wrong. So my suggestion, again, is to come up with some language that is
neutral on this point.

<john>Fair enough.  I can change the language further to a kind of 'There
exist documents which are dependent...'.
However, note that since there exist XSLT and XPath transforms in DSig's
SignedInfo element, the DSig SignedInfo element is among those documents
that would be harmed by namespace rewriting.

> 2) relative to absolute URIs
> I will be *very* happy to see this as an erratum, but I cannot remove the
> statement from c14n until that erratum is published. I am hoping this
> before C14N goes to candidate rec.

That is probably something you should pass on to the XSL WG.

<john>Will do.</john>


Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 14:23:19 UTC