- From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:53:34 -0700
- To: "Doug Bunting" <Doug@ariba.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BFEDKCINEPLBDLODCODKIEIACFAA.jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Hi Doug, John, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this updated draft. My previous suggestions seem to have been addressed quite well in this version. I have a few new questions: a.. In section 2.1 (with regard to the third paragraph), please confirm that comments in the internal subset are always discarded, regardless of any Boolean flag controlling overall handling of comment nodes. Words to this effect may be a worthwhile addition to this section. b.. c.. <john>They are, by virtue of eliminating the DTD as listed in section 1.1. I will add a parenthetic statement to clarify this in Section 2.1 as requested.</john> a.. b.. In the bullets near the end of section 2.2, the term "sorted lexicographically" is ambiguous. Do you mean that namespace and attribute nodes are output in order from least to greatest lexicographically? Or, greatest to least? (The later examples show the first.) <john>Lexicographically literally means 'dictionary order', which is ascending in the chosen alphabet (UTF-8 in our case), so I did not think there was ambiguity here.</john> In the same bullets, why are attribute nodes output using an order derived from the namespace URI values? Such a requirement seems more appropriate if the Canonical XML recommendation includes namespace re-writing rules. As things are now, why not sort the attributes using the namespace prefix as the primary key? <john>They are sorted by namespace URI because this follows more closely the intent of XML Names, which is to identify namespaces by URI+localname, not by prefix+localname. Thus, the effect of the sort is to group together all attributes that are in the same namespace. Though not a requirement for producing an unambiguous canonical form, it is preferrable, particularly if one factors in the optics of *appearing* to violate the intent of XML names by sorting with prefixes, even if one is not technically violating the intent.</john> a.. In the last two bullets in section 2.3, the addition of leading #xA characters according to the given rules will add such characters in most contexts. Comments and processing instructions are likely to occur within the document and will thus have a greater document order than the document element. I believe you meant to limit this addition to processing instructions and comment nodes with a greater document order than the end of the document element. <john>Actually, I meant what was said, which is that the leading and trailing #xA are added to *children of the root node* with the document order characteristics given in Section 2.3. Only comments outside of the top-level document element can be children of the root node. a.. As an example of the previous point, the "Canonical Form (commented)" example in the table of section 3.1 should (according to the existing rules) have a leading #xA prior to "Comment 1." b.. c.. <john>Actually, the point of examples was to make sure everybody understood exactly what was meant by the prose in the specification. There should not be a leading #xA prior to Comment 1 because it is a child of element <doc>, not a child of the root node.</john> d.. e.. Since validating XML processors are required to normalize (remove) any leading or trailing whitespace in an attribute value where that attribute is declared to be of a type other than CDATA, the canonical form for the normId element in section 3.4 should be <normId id="' 
	 '"></normId>. That is, this example should not have a space between the enclosing quotation marks and the first and last apostrophes. <john>Agreed. In [1], I mentioned this to Karlinger. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0492.html So, in summary, I intend to fix example 3.4 in the way described in [1], and I intend to add a parenthetic clarifying the loss of comments in DTDs due to loss of DTDs in Section 2.1. Good? Thanks, John Boyer </john> thanx, doug Doug Bunting cXML Standards Manager Ariba, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: John Boyer [mailto:jboyer@PureEdge.com] Sent: September 11, 2000 14:51 To: Doug Bunting; TAMURA Kent; Muraw3c@Attglobal. Net; Anli Shundi; lesch@w3.org; Martin J. Duerst; Petteri Stenius Subject: Last Call Hi all, You are getting this email because the new September 7 version of C14N [1] addresses last call issues that include changes based on your feedback. It would be very helpful if you could have a look at the last call issues list [2], read the resolutions, and send an email to the dsig group to indicate either that you are satisfied that your issue was resolved or if you require further changes. PLEASE SEND YOUR RESPONSE TO THE DSIG GROUP so I can provide links from the last call document to your affirmation. Thanks for your patience and kind attention to this matter. We would like to submit for candidate recommendation next week, so if you could cut some time out of this week to do this, I would really appreciate it. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000907 [2] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/09/06-c14n-last-call-issues.html Thanks, John Boyer Development Team Leader, Distributed Processing and XML PureEdge Solutions Inc. Creating Binding E-Commerce v: 250-479-8334, ext. 143 f: 250-479-3772 1-888-517-2675 http://www.PureEdge.com
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: LINE.gif
- image/jpeg attachment: PureEdge.jpg
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2000 15:53:45 UTC