- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:37:36 -0400
- To: "Sijo Mathew" <sijo@avenir.net>, <tony@vordel.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Wednesday 02 July 2003 02:51, Sijo Mathew wrote: > 2) rule-3 applies only to namespace nodes *with prefixes*. In our > case the namespace node rendered has no prefix. It's rule 3, with an earlier sentence in mind, "A similar definition applies for an element E in a document subset that visibly utilizes the default namespace declaration, which occurs if E has no namespace prefix." I can see where you got confused; however, as hard as I try I can't easily reformulate rule 3 to include this caveat every time the term "prefix" is used without making it completely unreadable. Consequently, I propose this imperfect eratum with the expectation that should a second revision ever issue, we'll need to maybe introduce a new defined term or re-structure these rules to better express our intent: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/xml-exc-c14n-errata#E04 | E04 2003-07-02 (Editorial) | In section 3. Specification of Exclusive XML | Canonicalization, rule 3 needs to be read to include | non-empty default namespace declarations, | consequently it should read as, | | 3. A namespace node N with a prefix that does not | appear in the the InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList | [INS: (including non-empty default namespaces with | a "null" prefix) :INS] is rendered if all of the | conditions are met:
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 08:37:39 UTC