- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:18:53 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote: > 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? I found that very clear. IIRC exc-c14n defers to c14n which specifies UTF-8, I'll check ... "The exclusive canonical form ... is as defined in the Canonical XML Recommendation [XML-C14N] except ..." and following the link UTF-8 is in the first bullet point in the definition of canonical form in section 1.1. > > > 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. > Once again I found that clear: #def-visibly-utilizes is the anchor. I suppose the reader is meant to link visible and visibly > > Regards, Martin. > Jeremy
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 15:19:38 UTC