- From: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:07:33
- To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I think I'm missing something... merlin said: > I agree that #2 may be necessary; we are otherwise > mandating some degree of URI understanding within a > c14r. Gregor said: > Since neither Canonical XML nor XML-Signature interpret namespace > uri values in an other way as that they are strings, I don't see > a reason to forbid the generation of a canonical version for XML > docs using relative namespace uris. I don't understand how #1 mandates or forbids anything. It merely says that we're not specifying what happens. If it mandates anything I'm against it! Perhaps we should change the wording to "can not be interoperably signed." Under #1, an implementation can choose to treat URIs as per #2... we're just not guaranteeing that it will interoperate. But it seems to me that #2 doesn't guarantee interoperability in the grand scheme of things anyway since other specs don't define what happens in the case of relative URIs. I think odds are most implementations will behave as per #2... I just object to requiring them to behave that way. -Mark Bartel JetForm Corporation
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 13:08:08 UTC