- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:57:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, "w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org" <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Peter F. \\\\ Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> In particular the problem > of namespaces that are used but not so visibly so, seems to be a reasonable > argument for using c14n rather than exc-c14n). Not sure what this could mean - you mean something like a qname attribute value? Oh. I suppose you could work around that by adding the prefix to the inclusives list, but I see your point. /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 00:57:33 UTC