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

Re: History: Question on C14N list of nodes instead of subtrees

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:59:33 +0000
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@pureedge.com>
Cc: reagle@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020125035933.5253543C56@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>
>I'm not averse to more transforms; it would be useful to get an idea for
>how much motivation there might be to make changes at this point.  My
>position is that 
>	if the problem is important enough (e.g. good idea but too slow
>in a frequently occuring scenario), and
>	if it is easy for the implementations to be tweaked, 
>	then let's fix it before REC.
>So, before we stop the presses and re-architect anything, it would be
>useful to find out exactly how important the problem is.  By this I mean
>the mundane question of how frequently occuring the scenario is, but
>also the more interesting question of whether the slowness is really an
>inherent limitation we are hitting with XPath or just an implementation

I don't think that we need to change the spec or anything;
we can just throw up a new doc like exclusive c14n, or even
just add to the extra algorithms doc. I may try running
some tests if I have the time.


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.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 22:59:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:37 UTC