Re: Problem in exclusive canonicalization? encoding underspecified

Martin,

It sounds like you're reading the Introduction, rather than the Specification
which is in Section 3 of the document. Section 3 begins "The data model,
processing, input parameters, and output data for Exclusive XML Canonicalization
are the same as for Canonical XML [XML-C14N] with the following exceptions",
indicating that encoding (along with everything else) is as defined in C14N,
i.e. UTF-8. Also in Section 3, the handling of namespaces nodes is specified
using the term "visibly utilized", which is clearly defined in the document. I
guess the paragraph in the introduction uses "visible" as shorthand for "visibly
utilized". The supporting and non-normative sections of the document are a
little loosely worded, but the spec is, while quite terse, pretty well defined
IMHO.

Ari

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
To: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: <reagle@w3.org>; "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>;
<w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Problem in exclusive canonicalization? encoding underspecified


>
> I just have had a look at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718, and found
> two problems, one of them i18n-related.
>
>
> 1) encoding underspecified?
>
> The exclusive canonical form of a document subset is a physical
> representation of the XPath node-set, as an octet sequence, produced by the
> method described in this specification.
>
> This does not at all say what the encoding is. Is this UTF-8? If yes,
> where is this specified? If no, what is the encoding? Is the reader
> supposed to go check elsewhere?
>
>
> 2) what is 'visible'?
>
> The document says "namespace nodes that are not on the InclusiveNamespaces
> PrefixList are expressed only in start tags where they are visible and if
> they are not in effect from an output ancestor of that tag."
> The word 'visible' turns up only one more time, again not in a defining
> context. Readers probably can work out what 'visible' is supposed to
> mean from context and examples, but that's not how a spec should work,
> I guess.
>
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>

Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 15:17:44 UTC