W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Changes to C14N20 for ACTION-794, ACTION-799 and ACTION-800

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:02:10 +0000
To: <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <cantor.2@osu.edu>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC41297F-72F3-403B-9A40-0129CE30D502@nokia.com>
I suggest you keep the text you have, but perhaps note the reference as well

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:48 AM, ext Pratik Datta wrote:

> I see that both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 define whitespace in the same way.
> 
>  S    ::=    (#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that we put in a reference to the XML 1.0/1.1 specification that defines this whitespace?
> 
> Pratik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cantor, Scott E. [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:05 AM
> To: Pratik Datta; public-xmlsec@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Changes to C14N20 for ACTION-794, ACTION-799 and ACTION-800
> 
> On 6/6/11 3:35 AM, "Pratik Datta" <pratik.datta@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/c14n-20/
>> 
>> Changes for whitespace
>> In Section 2.3, added this line into "Text Nodes"
>> - Whitespace consists of space (#x20) characters, carriage returns, line
>> feeds, or tabs.
> 
> This should be a reference to XML, no? Does XML 1.0 vs. 1.1 affect this at
> all?
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 16:03:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 June 2011 16:03:06 GMT