W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Canonical MicroXML

From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:00:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAA0AChWeW_izx3WA7r7q4P5kf1dZzJbLj1aXGz9cSXfROMXdMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
or, better,  'singular'
----
Stephen D Green



On 2 October 2012 14:59, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:

> 'single' ?
> ----
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
> On 2 October 2012 14:37, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Stephen D Green <
>> stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why / in what sense "unique"? I think I know what is meant
>>> but it could be taken the wrong way. Clearly two documents
>>> can have identical canonical versions and therefore neither
>>> be 'unique'.
>>>
>>
>> But each c14n would be unique in respect to a particular transform.
>>  James's wording is clearly talking about the range, not the domain.  In
>> other words the output of a c14n transform is unique even though its inputs
>> need not be.  I'm not sure it would be clearer to use wording to the effect
>> that it's a many to one transform.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
>> Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
>> http://wearekin.org
>> http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
>> http://copia.ogbuji.net
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
>> http://twitter.com/uogbuji
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 14:01:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 October 2012 14:01:09 GMT