On Tuesday 19 March 2002 19:58, John Boyer wrote: > From a change standpoint, defining set intersection and subtraction is a > relatively small change to the spec. I think the optimizations will > also be easy to define and not hard on the programmer because we > basically only want to account for the current include/exclude cases. > Given the optimizations, I would certainly agree that the set operations > represent a preferable architecture. I agree that this seems to be where the consensus is headed. I'm not aware of any standing opposition to set operations though there is still some confusion: Christian asking about what exactly Merlin is proposing [1], and my confusion about multiple transforms operating on the *original* document, not their preceding transforms output [2]. So before we have a call or resort to a poll I'd recommend we gather our thoughts and first reflect these changed in the document. Then we can further discuss as needed. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0240.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0234.html -- 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 Wednesday, 20 March 2002 11:29:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT