AW: Call for Implementation: Canonical XML Becomes a W3C Candidate Recommendation

Hi Joseph,

please add IAIK's implementation.

I will give you a report what our implementation is conform with at the
end of next week.

Regards, Gregor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Karlinger
mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
http://www.iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------
 

> Betreff: Call for Implementation: Canonical XML Becomes a W3C Candidate
> Recommendation

> If you would like your implementation to be listed, or can give further 
> feedback on that status of your implementation with respect to 
> empty boxes, 
> please forward that information on to the list.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/10/10-c14n-interop



> 
> Forwarded Text ----
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:26:08 -0700
> From: Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
> Organization: W3C
> To: no-spam-w3c-ac-members@w3.org
> CC: reagle@w3.org
> Subject: Call for Implementation: Canonical XML Becomes a W3C Candidate
>   Recommendation
> 
> 
> Dear W3C Advisory Committee Representative,
> 
> W3C is pleased to announce the advancement of Canonical XML to Candidate
> Recommendation status.
> 
> 	Canonical XML Version 1.0
> 	26 October 2000
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026
> 	ed. John Boyer, <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
> 
> 1 Abstract
> 
> Any XML document is part of a set of XML documents that are logically
> equivalent within an application context, but which vary in physical
> representation based on syntactic changes permitted by XML 1.0 [XML] and
> Namespaces in XML [Names]. This specification describes a method for
> generating a physical representation, the canonical form, of an XML
> document that accounts for the permissible changes. Except for
> limitations regarding a few unusual cases, if two documents have the
> same canonical form, then the two documents are logically equivalent
> within the given application context. Note that two documents may have
> differing canonical forms yet still be equivalent in a given context
> based on application-specific equivalence rules for which no generalized
> XML specification could account.
> 
> 2 Request for publication and outstanding issues
> 
> The publication of the Canonical XML Version 1.0 Candidate
> Recommendation is a result of a request sent to the Director and the W3C
> Chairs, archived at:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2000OctDec/0021
> 
> The XML Signature WG reports that all last call issues have been
> resolved. The Canonical XML Version 1.0 Last Call Issue Report is at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/09/06-c14n-last-call-issues
> 
> There were no minority objections.
> 
> Results of the initial operability report already show two independent
> implementations. The interoperability report is at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/10/10-c14n-interop
> 
> 
> 3 Exit criteria
> 
> The XML Signature Working Group encourages implementations during the CR
> period, which ends on 24 November 2000. The XML Signature Working Group
> must produce an amended version of the implementation report, taking
> into account new implementations, in order to exit the Candidate
> Recommendation phase, and showing that they have addressed all issues
> raised during the CR period.
> 
> 
> 4 Description of what Candidate Recommendation status means
> 
> The W3C Process Document describes the Candidate Recommendation status
> of a specification in Section 6.2.3:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR
> 
>     Advancement of a document to Candidate Recommendation is an explicit
>     call to those outside of the related Working Groups or the W3C itself
>     for implementation and technical feedback.
> 
> 5 Status of This Document
> 
> The "status of this document" section for the Candidate Recommendation
> reads:
> 
> 	This specification from the IETF/W3C XML Signature Working
> 	Group (W3C Activity Statement) is a Candidate Recommendation
> 	of the W3C. While this was originally a deliverable of the XML
> 	Core Working Group, completion of this specification has been
> 	delegated to the XML Signature Working Group.
> 
> 	The XML Signature Working Group believes this specification
> 	incorporates the resolution of all last call issues;
> 	furthermore it considers the specification to be very stable
> 	(as demonstrated by its interoperability report) and invites
> 	further implementation feedback during this period. The
> 	duration of Candidate Recommendation will last approximately
> 	four weeks (November 24).
> 
> 	Please send comments to the editors and cc: the list
> 	<w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>.
> 
> 	There have been no declarations regarding patents related
> 	to this specification within the XML Signature Working Group.
> 
> 	A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical
> 	documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.
> 
> For Tim Berners-Lee, Director;
> Janet Daly, Head of Communcations
> End Forwarded Text ----
> 
> __
> Joseph Reagle Jr.
> W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
> IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 27 October 2000 08:55:02 UTC