RE: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for C14N 1.1 (Appendix)

Konrad,

At 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
07Jun/0000
you sent a copy of this message to the C14N 1.1 comment list.

As you know, our current plan is to remove the algorithm from 
Appendix A, augment the prose in section 3.2 accordingly, and 
replace Appendix A with a list of test cases that the implementors 
found helpful during the CR period.

For the purposes of the Disposition of Comments, do you accept
this resolution of your comment?

Please reply to the www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
as soon as feasible so that we can complete our DoC.

thanks,

paul

Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konrad Lanz [mailto:Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at] 
> Sent: Saturday, 2007 May 26 21:05
> To: Grosso, Paul; Thomas Roessler; Frederick Hirsch
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg; public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DRAFT #1: Transition Request: CR Request for 
> C14N 1.1 (Appendix)
> 
> Hi Thomas, Paul and Frederick
> 
> I actually found some time this weekend to make preparations 
> for C14n1.1 
> interoperability test and created two test implementations (taking 
> different approaches) for the modified remove_dot_segments 
> function and 
> identified several problems. (If someone is interested in 
> detail one can 
> try the test cases in the attached HTML file).
> 
> However I think I was successful in addressing all of them and thus 
> updated Appendix A in a manner that would deal with the issues.
> 
> As I do not have a detailed enough knowledge about the 
> processes in W3C 
> and I'm unsure weather it's a good time to bring this up now.
> I'd like to ask how to proceed on this or if I shall rather 
> wait until 
> the actual testing starts?
> 
> Nevertheless I just wanted to let you know ASAP.
> 
> Also please find a reworded version of the c14n11 Appendix including 
> several test cases in the attachment.
> 
> Further in the concourse of these initial tests I also found 
> a potential 
> ambiguity in the merge_path function in rfc3986
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.3
> 
> Which says: " i.e., excluding any characters after the 
> right-most "/" in 
> the base URI path"
> 
> However I don't think this applies if a base URI has two 
> trailing dots 
> (assuming the optional normalization mentioned in the second 
> paragraph 
> of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.1 was not 
> performed).
> 
> So I'm unsure what would happen to an inherited xml:base URI 
> reference 
> of the form "../.." to be joined with a URI reference of the 
> form "..". 
> For the least surprising output I would bet on "../../../" as 
> an output 
> and I think this would also deserve a mention in section 2.4 
> of C14n 1.1 .
> 
> Again I'm also unsure if the timing is good to bring this up ...
> 
> I'm looking forward to your responses ...
> 
> regards
> Konrad
> 
> 
> Konrad Lanz schrieb:
> > Henry S. Thompson schrieb:
> >> [...]
> >>> A review version showing the differences between C14N 1.0 is at
> >>> http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509-diff.htm
> >>>     
> > The diff looks funny in the appendix as it is intermixed with the 
> > removed Acknowledgements.
> > Is there a way to make this more readable ...
> >
> > Konrad
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology
> Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
> Tel: +43 316 873 5547
> Fax: +43 316 873 5520
> https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz
> http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at
> 
> Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate):
> https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 19:35:45 UTC