- From: Joseph Ashwood <jashwood@arcot.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:00:40 -0800
- To: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
> So I think there are three courses open to you on this issue:
> 3. A noted opposition in the specifications' issues document.
This seems like the most reasonable thing to do at this point. Because the
rest of the spec is close to completion, it would be foolish to hold it up,
however having it noted is a reasonable answer. Additionally I have given it
some thought, and I am now unconvinced that Canonical XML is actually the
problem, the problem may be buried more deeply, and it will take quite a bit
more investigation to uncover the real source. I think having a noted issue
with the specification would at this point be the most reasonable thing.
Joe
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2001 15:26:45 UTC