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

RE: Xpath transform changes and questions

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:08:56 -0800
To: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@exemplary.net>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org>
So what you're saying, which is what I understood from before, is that if we
sort based on the character domain, then the result should be the same
regardless of encoding.

Martin, do you agree?

John Boyer
Software Development Manager
PureEdge Solutions, Inc. (formerly UWI.Com)

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Christopher R.
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 1:08 AM
To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG; w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Xpath transform changes and questions

[Martin Dürst]
>At 00/03/17 12:47 -0800, John Boyer wrote:
>iii) If everything else checks out, we can get rid of exact order and just
>>use lex order provided that lex ordering in UTF-16 results in the same
>>as lex ordering in UTF-8 (which is Christopher Maden's claim).
>This is not true. Surrogate pairs are the counterexample.
>And of course it is not true for any other character encoding,
>except in a very limited sense for iso-8859-1 and us-ascii.

I was referring to ordering on characters, not bytes.  It should be obvious
that bytewise sorting on a two-byte and a variable-byte encoding will be


Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect
Yomu (formerly Exemplary Technologies)
One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405
San Francisco, CA 94111
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2000 12:07:08 UTC

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