Issue 87 again

[Erik Rissanen <erik@axiomatics.com>]

All,

I have now had a careful look at issue 87 and I agree with the 
conclusion Rich reached earlier. I summary:

- The ...:resource:path identifier seems to have just been dropped out 
by mistake from 2.0.

- There is are some typos in the examples in the 2.0 spec. One of the 
attribute values is garbled and the resource:xpath attribute is missing 
in the sample request in section 4.2.2.

As Rich points out on the issues list, there is already a TC decision in 
February 2007 to fix this. I will make an update to the errata doc 
accordingly.

However, an open issue remains, as Rich points out:

- The examples in the 2.0 document (and in 1.1 as well) use xpointer, 
but there is nothing in the normative sections which say that xpointer 
is part of XACML.

Xpath and xpointer are not the same, so this last point is a bit tricky 
to fix. The simple solution is to say that it was a mistake to use 
xpointer, and that only xpath is allowed and rewrite the examples as 
plain xpath. The difficult solution is to say that it is allowed, in 
which case we need to go through all parts which refer to xpath and 
change that to xpointer. This is a major change and I don't think we 
should do this (unless everybody in the world "knew" that it really 
meant xpointer and everybody implemented xpointer, not just xpath as it 
says.)

What's the take of the TC on this?

- If we drop xpointer from the examples, we should perhaps put the 
document identifier which is present in the xpointer into the 
document-id attribute, which I think is defined somewhere in the 2.0 specs.

Regards,
Erik