RE: Last call announcement for Namespaces 1.1

I don't agree that changes would be required to exc-c14n, but would like to
hear more about why this would be the case.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Paul Grosso
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:49 AM
To: reagle@w3.org; Richard Tobin
Cc: XML Signature (W3C/IETF)
Subject: Re: Last call announcement for Namespaces 1.1



At 11:01 2002 09 11 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:

>Right. However, I think this would also require changes to c14n and
possibly
>exc-c14n. (I don't think exc-c14n would change because it only emits a
>namespace declaration if the prefix is utilized, and I doubt that an
>undeclared prefix will be utilized, so the results probably look the same.)


Joseph,

Can I put down the XMLDSIG WG as officially committing to review this Last
Call
by Sept 28th?

paul