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

Re: initial Exclusive Canonicalization draft

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:08:34 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010711175911.00ba2f00@localhost>
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Comments on:
         http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xml-exc-c14n.html

Ed: paragraphs 2-n of Terminology I would break off into a separate section 
called "Concepts" as Terminology typically serves an editorial purposes and 
little more.

Sub: Instead of relying upon the URI of the document as the algorithm 
identifier (as we did in Canonical XML) this specification should define 
one, as we did with namespaces. That way, as long as the spec is relatively 
stable through editorial revisions, we don't have to change the identifier. 
I propose:
         http://www.w3.org/2001/07/xml-exc-c14n

Sub: Since subsetting is RECOMMENDED in Canonical XML, I presume it would be 
here as well -- as would the UnsuppressedNameSpacePrefix. (I'm not sure I 
agree with Merlin (haven't made up my mind) that we don't need to say a 
comma separated list. It's good to know what the inputs to an implementation 
be they a string, nodeset, URI, etc. If this is a string, we should probably 
say it's encoding in any case).


--
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 18:08:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:36 UTC