The XML Core WG thanks the XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group and the various implementors involved in testing the C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation for their feedback.
Konrad Lanz suggests some detailed changes to the xml:base algorithm in Appendix A.
Resolution
Comment no longer applies. We have decided 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.
The commentor accepted the resolution.
The change back to the language in C14N 1.0 that is suggested in detail elsewhere should be applied, as it matches implementation behavior.
Resolution
Comment accepted. The wording change was unintentional. We have reverted to the original wording.
The commentor accepted the resolution.
The normative text is correct (but in need of clarification), and that the example provided in the specification is incorrect. The XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group suggested better wording and a corrected example.
Resolution
Comment accepted. We have taken the suggested rewording to address the needed clarification and we have corrected the example as suggested.
The commentor accepted the resolution.
The algorithm for handling xml:base values that was based on RFC 3986 was too hard to understand. The implementors found the prose and a list of examples to be more understandable.
Resolution
Comment accepted. We have replaced the algorithm in Appendix A with a list of examples and have done some rewording in the prose of section 3.2 (as suggested by the XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG) to explain the algorithm.
The commentor accepted the resolution.