W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Comments on XPath Filter 2.0 draft (2002-06-20)

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:46:37 +0200
To: <reagle@w3.org>, "'John Boyer'" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "'merlin'" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: "'XMLSigWG'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <027001c22807$7356b6a0$2305a8c0@iaik.at>
Joseph,

I do not think that this tweaks are sufficient. Please see my reply
email to John today for details.

Regards, Gregor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:56 PM
> To: John Boyer; merlin; Gregor Karlinger
> Cc: XMLSigWG
> Subject: Re: Comments on XPath Filter 2.0 draft (2002-06-20)
> 
> 
> On Monday 08 July 2002 01:59 pm, John Boyer wrote:
> > The point I will concede is that the statement "iterate through the 
> > input document in document order" seems unnecessary.  The 
> declarative 
> > style would simply be to say "Process each node in the document, 
> > adding each node to the filter node-set..." .
> 
> I've tweaked the text in [1] to the declarative stance. As 
> I'm also prepping 
> the spec for publication I've moved all the "node set" to 
> "node-set" and 
> updated the References, if anyone thinks this is not 
> insufficient (or folks 
> want pseudo-code) please say so ASAP. (The Last Call ends on 
> this Thursday 
> and I will publish a new version next week, the question is 
> should be it a 
> Candidate REC (and give it another 3 weeks in that stage if 
> we expect other 
> implementations) or Proposed REC (save ourselves a little time)).
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-filter2/
> $Revision: 1.18 $ on $Date: 2002/07/09 18:51:51 $ GMT by 
> $Author: reagle $
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 07:50:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:10 UTC