W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Problem with canonical form?

From: Joseph Ashwood <jashwood@arcot.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:00:40 -0800
Message-ID: <00a801c07a7a$6341a860$2a0210ac@livermore>
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.
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2001 15:26:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:35 UTC