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

Re: minor naming point

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:43:17 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990914124317.00a2a550@localhost>
To: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
Cc: "'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG '" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 11:25 99/09/14 -0400, Mark Bartel wrote:
 >Here's part of a coworker's response to my ftf trip report:
 >
 >> I'm sure this is a picky point, but it took me a long time to figure out
 >> that "c14n" was "canonicalization".  Ok, convenient short-hand for
 >> informal communication.  But, it's actually in a tag in the spec,
 >> <c14nalg>.  Yikes!  Yet, we have <transformations> instead of <t12ns>,
 >> and the fairly ubiquitous term "signature" which could be replaced
 >> with "s7e".  The people who thought this up could probably also save a
 >> lot of space/typing my storing only two digits for year values.
 >
 >While I don't feel that strongly on the issue, XML is supposed to be
 >readable.  I don't think the twelve bytes saved per signature are
 >significant enough to warrant the abbreviation.  But then, my favorite
 >applications aren't particularly sensitive to size.

c14n is quite common in the Web community and spreads like a virus once
people first see it. comes from i18n (internationalization), can be
generalized for A(X-3)ion words.

_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 1999 12:43:25 GMT

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