Re: Request for clarification on Canonical XML

On Wednesday 30 July 2003 11:27, Tom Gindin wrote:
>         Here's my try at the wording:

(Defer to Martin's subsequent email about not introducing new terms, just 
making clear other people can do such definitions...)

>         I have one substantive question, however.  Is there any need to
> produce a canonical form with less escaping than the current ones?

I'm not sure which escaping you are referring to?

>         If we define canonical forms in other encodings, do those
> canonicalizations need their own tags?

What do you mean by tags? They'd have different identifier/URIs no doubt if 
they were standardized.