- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:36:36 -0400
- To: "Ari Kermaier" <arik@phaos.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 15:16 03/06/30 -0400, Ari Kermaier wrote: >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. Thanks to you and others for pointing this out. This seems to be okay. >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. Given the terseness and precision of the specification, it seems to me a bad idea to use both 'visible' and 'visibly utilized' with the same meaning, even more so as it turns out that 'visibly utilized' is already defined before 'visible' is used. I guess it wouldn't hurt to fix this in an erratum. Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 15:58:13 UTC