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

RE: Alternative Canonicalization Draft

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:23:53 +0200
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBIMACDKCOPBLEJCCDAEMCCFAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Hello John,

> [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph M. Reagle
> Jr.


> John's alternative approach to C14N (in XPath instead of InfoSet context,
> though the results aren't that different aside from the changes we
> explicitly discussed) is at:
> http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/WD-xml-c14n-20000601.html
> I think it would be best to get comments from folks in this WG before
> forewarding it to the attention of the larger community (though I'd like
> to do that ASAP).

following my comments and questions regarding your latest C14N draft.

* In section 4 you specify the text generation for the root node as 

  "Root Node- Nothing (no byte order mark, no XML declaration, no
   document type declaration)."

  XML 1.0 allows also comments and processing instructions to be child
  nodes of the root. Why are these nodes eliminated?

* In section 4, in the specification for namespace and attribute node
  text generation, I found the following sentence:

  "[...] and all whitespace characters (#x9, #xA, #xD, and #x20) with 
   character references, except for #x20 characters with no preceding

  I am sorry I do not understand the last part of this sentence. Could
  you please give an example?

Regards, Gregor
Gregor Karlinger
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 03:23:50 UTC

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