- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:32:27 -0400
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
I'm working to publish a new Candidate REC next week, and then if we haven't introduced too many more bugs, we can advance the document in May. We may or may not be able to resolve the xmldsig#md5 and XSLT!=string issue by next week, but I don't think they are critical path for an update to the spec (they are straightforward choices regardless.) Some things to note is that will be using the latest version of schema [2] (hopefully I haven't introduced any bugs into the definitions and the one example), and we now have a section on CryptoBinary [3] for which the bignum text applies to (generalized to all CryptoBinary). John, there's still some text in there that reads: >Note: The function definition for here() is intended to be consistent with >its definition in XPointer. However, some minor differences are presently >being discussed between the Working Groups. Can this be deleted now? [1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/20000228-last-call-issues#CandidateREC [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xmlschema-1-20010316/ [3] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-CryptoBinary __ Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 18:32:34 UTC