W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2005

RE: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of refps

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:55:31 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B63380482C6C5@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I think that provided the EPR doesn't contain any QNames (or other
lexical forms that use namespace declarations) in content then EXCC14N
is fine. 

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley
> Sent: 18 January 2005 08:41
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of refps
> 
> 
> On Jan 17, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
> >
> > I took an action to raise an issue about comparison of refps when 
> > comparing EPRs for equivalence. What form of comparison do 
> we require 
> > to determine equivalence. In particular do we need to define a 
> > canonicalization that is performed prior to comparison ?
> >
> Never mind, Anish pointed out that the spec currently requires 
> exclusive c14n: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-addr-core-20041208/#eprcomp
> 
> There was some discussion about whether any of the existing c14n 
> algorithms was adequate for our needs so perhaps we need to discuss 
> that instead.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 21:56:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT