Re: updated editor's draft

On 2007-07-30 15:38:29 -0400, Sean Mullan wrote:

>> I thought the answer to that was "no", sticking to our "minimal
>> changes" mantra.

> Right, but I don't know of any XML Signature implementations that
> don't support Exclusive C14N. And we're adding a new requirement
> for C14N 1.1 which is as much of a change in my opinion.

Well, that is a change that was called out in our charter.

I realize that we could add the reference to Exclusive without
changing conformance, and agree that having a full catalogue of
relevant algorithms and IDs would be very useful; I just think we
need to draw the line somewhere for this iteration.

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>