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

Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:54:24 -0400
Message-Id: <200009211954.PAA29262@torque.pothole.com>
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org

My personal opinion in this is to go with #2 and suitable warnings
that realtive URI namespaces are flakey.

I think of C14N as an algorithmic transform of well-formed XML into
well-formed XML.  While the treatedment of relative URI namespaces may
be undefined, it is hard to think of any reasonable future meaning
which might be attached to them, ranging from them being a fatal error
to being realtive to xmlbase, which wouldn't be the same for both
non-canonical and canonical forms.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                      dee3@torque.pothole.com
 140 Forest Avenue                                +1 978-562-2827(h)
 Hudson, MA 01749 USA                             +1 508-261-5434(w)
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2000 15:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:34 UTC