- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:09:21 -0500
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote: > xml:base attributes are not omitted, they just aren't included from > the nearest ancestor that has one in the apex of what is being > canonicalized doesn't have one. Canonical XML includes what it can > from ancestors and Exclusive XML Canonicalization excludes what it can > from ancestors. If you want something inbetween, you can start with > either and take explicit steps to more towards the middle of the > spectrum. I apologize for the late reply and hope I didn't hold the draft. I'm still not entirely convinced that is a good thing to exclude the xml:base attributes from ancestors if the ancestors are not included in the set. On the other hand, use cases might show that this issue is not a real one for Exclusive XML Canonicalization so I'm not opposed to move the WD forward. The Candidate Recommendation phase would be the good step to test the relevance of the issue and see if it matters in XML applications. Philippe
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 11:09:46 UTC