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>
r/JBoyer@pureedge.com/2002.01.24/16:12:13
>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
>limitation.

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.

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.

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

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