W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Relative NS if Exclusive C14n?

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:23:53 +0200
To: <aleksey@aleksey.com>, "'Christian Geuer-Pollmann'" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009001c20304$ce2ca4e0$1a05a8c0@iaik.at>
Hi all,

Aleksey has already provided the argument, but I guess that he wanted
to answer Christian's question with "no", since the question was

> >   Is this a relative namespace?

Regards, Gregor


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aleksey Sanin
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 6:00 PM
> To: Christian Geuer-Pollmann
> Cc: jboyer@PureEdge.com; reagle@w3.org; 
> Donald.Eastlake@Motorola.com; w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Relative NS if Exclusive C14n?
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. There is a protocol ('foo') and the "path" ('bar').
> 
> Aleksey.
> 
> Christian Geuer-Pollmann wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> >
> > short question about the examples in the "Exclusive XML
> > Canonicalization" PR:
> >
> >
> > The section "2.2 General Problems with re-Enveloping" contains this 
> > babe:
> >
> >   xmlns:n0="foo:bar"
> >
> > My question is:
> >
> >   Is this a relative namespace?
> >
> > xmlns:n0="urn:foo" is not, but the above?
> >
> >
> > Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 


Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 05:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT