- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:35:28 +0100
- To: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote: > Dear Web Apps WG, > Opera would like to provide some feedback based on our implementation > experience of the Widgets Digsig specification. > > Generally, we found that the specification is implementable but have > significant concerns about the requirement on XML Canonicalization 1.1. > Basically, we found that in practice you don't need it for this version of > the spec as widget signatures do not make use of the things Canonicalization > 1.1 addresses. > > We would like to propose the specification be changed to use XML > Canonicalization 1.0 throughout the specification. To be clear, we mean: XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments): http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 > If other implementers have found the same thing (i.e., they don't require > Canonicalization 1.1), then please lets start a discussion about what > changes need to be made to the specification and the potential impact of > using Canonicalization 1.0 exclusively throughout. > > If we get rapid agreement, then we can move to updating the spec, changing > the test cases, and republishing as a new LC ASAP. > > Kind regards, > Marcos > > -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/ http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 16:36:20 UTC