W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: AW: Input

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:09:07 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990826100907.00a3e8a0@localhost>
To: "Peter Lipp" <Peter.Lipp@iaik.at>
Cc: "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig@W3. Org" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 14:57 99/08/26 +0200, Peter Lipp wrote:
 >> I thought I had understood, but the more I think about it  the less I do:
 >> what do we need that for in the first place? To save some space for some
 >> apps that tend to manipulate and store these things in different
 >> forms (DOM) only? Couldn't they simply save the original data somewhere?
 >Just to add: I do NOT have a problem understanding canonicalization
required
 >by different character-sets, different line-breaks, and things like that.
 >Obviously necessary as we are talking about text-based documents. I was
just
 >wondering if anything beyond that was really an requirement (like pulling
in
 >external stuff).

My pragmatic opinion on this (aside from all the interesting discussion): If
we have any mandatory to implement c14n at this stage, I don't think it
should do anything beyond character composition/encoding/CR-LF processing.
Additionally, we should specify (or adopt) it ASAP and ensure its been
widely implemented/tested/used before normatively referencing/including it.
Syntax c14n, DOM-HASH, or whatever can evolve and be standardized as
appropriate by another WG, or by this one once we've completed the core
signature by December.



_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 10:09:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:07 GMT