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

Re: xml:space

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:36:13 -0500
Message-ID: <001801c19ae7$ff6dbfb0$7f00a8c0@DJQC7111>
To: "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>, <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I support adding xml:space and xml:lang for similar reasons to Christian's.

Regards, Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>; <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Whitespace


>
>
> --On Dienstag, 8. Januar 2002 21:26 -0500 Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, allowing both xml:lang and xml:space is better.
>
> I agree that the schema should be extended to allow somthing like this:
>
> <ds:Object xml:space="preserve"> <a>
> <dontEvenThinkToIndentThatYouBadProcessor />
>    <dontTouchMySurroundingSpaces />
> </a>
>
>
> </ds:Object>
>
> Yes, that should (or even must?) be allowed. People should be able to
> protect their ds:Signatures agains wild'n'mad processors who want to
> beautify/indent every XML 'document' they process.
>
> I don't think that this has (negative) security implications, it'll even
> give Signatures to chance to be more stable - especially when you from
SOAP
> folks and pipes of SOAP processors doing wild things with the msgs.
>
> Christian
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 16:37:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:14 GMT