- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:50:27 -0400
- To: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
- Cc: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Ok, I sprinkled two : UTF-8 /+ (without a byte ordering mark (BOM)) +/ into the Signature spec (6.5.1:minimal C14N) and (7.0: XML Canonicalization and Syntax Constraint Considerations) but it obvioulsy needs to go in xml-c14n. At 16:12 7/10/00 +0900, TAMURA Kent wrote: > >In message "Re: Clarify `UTF-8'" > on 00/07/07, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> writes: >> I'm plodding through email in my inbox for the next version and unless you >> can provide a standard reference for UTF-8N we'll continue using the UTF-8 >> reference in the context of the XML specification that Boyer pointed out. > >I asked some Unicode people about standardization of UTF-8N. >But anyone did not know about it. We should use the name >'UTF-8' in the specification but I hope adding short note about >no-BOM to the specification. > >-- >TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM > _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 10 July 2000 16:50:46 UTC