W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > June 2010

RE: Proposal for C14N xmlAncestors flag

From: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c13bc180-1fcc-4737-8199-83ed28fad297@default>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, cantor.2@osu.edu
Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
I was proposing three modes 

"inheritAll" : Simulate Canonical XML 1.0 behavior, which inherits all the attributes
"inherit" : Simulate the Canonical XML 1.1 behavior, where you inherit the inheritable attributes and combine the xml:base
"none" : Simulate Exclusive Canonical XML 1.0 behavior

I agree that inheritAll is not required - it was really a bug, we didn't consider xml:base last time, and the xml:id spec came out after C141.0 so we couldn't have considered that.

But what about "none"  - That is the option to simulate Exclusive Canonical XML 1.0.  Don't we still need that ? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:43 AM
To: cantor.2@osu.edu
Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; Pratik Datta; public-xmlsec@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for C14N xmlAncestors flag

To agree with Scott, we probably do not need to be backward compatible in 2.0 mode but do need to be clear in the spec about backward compatibility using "compatibility mode".

Any backward compatibility option in 2.0 mode probably requires a strong justification.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:56 AM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:

>> I remember that we had discussed this, but did we agree on this proposal ?
> I think Thomas had expressed a concern about whether we needed to bother
> exposing all of the backward compatibility options, and that it was better
> to define just "the right things" for 2.0.
> -- Scott
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 16:46:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:14 UTC