- From: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:05:10 +0900
- To: JBoyer@pureedge.com, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
> I read the context part, and I think it is correct; I just misunderstood > the application of the resulting subtrees. I think that include should > be specified as set intersection, as exclude is set subtraction. Set > replacement would, I think, be non-intuitive and, in my opinion, bad. > We can get set replacement behaviour using set intersection and an input > nodeset from URI #xpointer(/). I agree with Merlin. intersection and subtraction seems better. -- TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 21:06:00 UTC