W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Last Call Comment: Canonicalization

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 17:28:44 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Juha Pääjärvi <juha@firsthop.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 17:08 00/03/26 +0300, Juha Pääjärvi wrote:
 >draft. But I think that there should be a lightweight alternative for XML
 >c14n because c14n is limited to complete documents, needs a DTD or a
 >schema and is unnecessarily complicated for many applications. 

I think it's pretty clear we are going to have to address how to serialize
(c14n) XML fragments. If we went with Gregor's proposal [1], we might not
need your intermediate level.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JanMar/0156.html




 >To conclude: I think it would be beneficial to replace the minimal
 >canonicalization with a lightweight canonicalization that had the
 >following properties:
 > -Can be applied on elements and whole documents
 > -Does not require a DTD or schema for processing
 > -Does remove the most common sources of alternation in XML documents
 > -Canonicalization can be done for DOM tree and SAX events
 >The souces of alternation that should be removed are at least the
 > -Character set normalization (UTF-8, I guess)
 > -White spaces (spaces, tabs and line breaks)
 > -Possibly attribute order (for example convert to alphabetical order)
 >Any comments to the canonicalization requirements, are welcome. I have not
 >designed those requirements thoroughly, so it's quite possible that I
 >missed something there. 

Joseph Reagle Jr.   
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 17:38:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:33 UTC