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

RE: Proposal for C14N xmlAncestors flag

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:23 -0400
To: "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <026c01cb08ce$e6ef51c0$b4cdf540$@osu.edu>
> 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 ?

Yes. Thomas can certainly speak for his own point of view, but I think he
just meant not having options that represented obviously unintended behavior
just to say that you can manipulate 2.0 to look like 1.0.

-- Scott
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 18:58:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 June 2010 18:58:55 GMT