Re: initial Exclusive Canonicalization draft

r/reagle@w3.org/2001.07.12/18:54:45
>At 07:58 7/12/2001, merlin wrote:
>>The encoding (and, incidentally, your algorithm URI) belongs in &more;
>
>If I understand you, I don't agree with this. This specification should 
>define its own identifier. Why would it exist in &more;?

I just look at &exc; as the specification for an algorithm and &more;
as a specification for how certain algorithms are identified and encoded
for use in &dsig;. In much the same way, &c14n; specifies an algorithm
and &dsig; specifies (among other things) algorithm identifiers and
parameter encoding. The &exc; document is not tied to &dsig; and really
doesn't need to know how it will be encoded.

If this is not how things are, then I'm wrong. merlin


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
   http://www.baltimore.com