On Dec 16, 2004, at 9:09 PM, Rich Salz wrote: >> Or whether it makes sense to say that omission of a <wsa:To> is >> equivalent to including one with the well know 'anonymous' URI as its >> value. > > How about the empty element, <was:To/>? It's a lot less confusing to > see > a signed empty element then it is to recognize that an added element > isn't covered by the appropriate signature. Works for me. Marc. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 18:05:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT