ISSUE-95: Some points for future improvements after FPWD

Some points for future improvements after FPWD

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Canonical EXI

Raised by:

Youenn Fablet

Opened on:

2013-09-12

Description:

The section 1.4 on “limitations” may be beefed up (through a specific appendix) to help the users understand what may break or not the canonicalization.

Section 2.3, the note about insignificant xsi:type may also be illustrated with xsi:type=xsd:anyType profile case.

Section 2.4.5 is a bit fuzzy. Maybe it should be added that the convention must be agreed by both parties or even stronger requirements (must be able to express the convention within EXI options for instance?).

Section 4.2
I am still unsure about how is described the EXI header removal in section 4.2.
The EXI header removal seems more related to the signature process than to the canonicalization per se.

For instance, It seems strange to state that once canonicalized, a EXI stream loses its EXI header.
It would be simpler to state that in case of signature, only the EXI body is canonicalized and then signed.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. AW: RE: ISSUE-95: Some points for future improvements after FPWD (from daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com on 2016-08-16)
2. Agenda for 16 August EXI Telecon (from tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com on 2016-08-15)
3. Agenda for 09 August EXI Telecon (from tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com on 2016-08-08)
4. RE: ISSUE-95: Some points for future improvements after FPWD (from tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com on 2016-08-08)
5. ISSUE-95: Some points for future improvements after FPWD [Canonical EXI] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-09-12)

Related notes:

Display change log