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

Re: RDF C14N Inclusive or Exclusive

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:56:25 -0500
Message-Id: <200203041556.KAA22681@tux.w3.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

Yes, I expect it would be a pain to satisfy that requirement, but at the 
very least we should list it as an issue readers should be aware of.

On Monday 04 March 2002 10:42, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > 1. In your email: should we emit a namespace for prefixes found in an
> > attribute value (or even element content?!).
> My take on that was that the rational intent of exclusive C14N was not to
> emit such a namespace.
> One reason is simply the difficulty of computing such a fact. If I had
> used an XSLT example with attribute values being XPath expressions then
> precisely which namespaces are being used there is non-trivial to tell. I
> suspect if one wanted to supported XSLT in the full, (including element
> content) then the question of which namespace prefixes were being
> (invisibly) used may even be Turing complete!
> I found the choices made in the two specs on this issue quite
> understandable.
> Jeremy


Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 10:57:27 UTC

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