- From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:24:27 +0200
- To: <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "'XMLSigWG'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 03:08:00 UTC
Joseph, > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 8:01 PM > To: Gregor Karlinger > Cc: 'XMLSigWG' > Subject: Re: [XPath Filter 2.0] Interop Report [...] > > BTW: Why is the Application feature in the table labelled > > "base64 encoding"? I cannot see such a feature in the > > XPath Filter 2.0 spec. > > Ok, changed to "xpath-filter2". Does anyone thinks it's > useful to break out > different features such as intersect, subtract, union? > Anything else? I > don't think this is that useful for reporting, though we need > to make sure > all of these things are in our test set. No, I do not think that such a split into particular subfeatures makes sense. The moment we have solved the problem with empty node sets I explained recently (could anybody of the spec editors please comment!), I could contribute some examples dealing with empty input node sets and empty XPath processing results. Regards, Gregor
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 03:08:00 UTC