Re: Namespace Inclusions

Hi folks,

A question for developers.

Following Rich's comment:

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:42:21AM -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> 
> I think that since we no longer use QName's in XKMS, that this is not 
> much of an issue any more.  Also, since WS-Security and WS-I, et al., 
> are now all recommending exclusive-c14n, which doesn't have the problems 
> caused by standard c14n and embedding content, we should strike this.
> 
> It's not really an editorial change, although it can be treated as such, 
> since it's removing a limitation.  We can either remove the text, and 
> let folks like ws-i, etc., advise what to do, or we can explicitly say
> 	XKMS messages that will be embedded in SOAP documents SHOULD be 
> 	signed using exc-c14n.

Will either striking the text or changing it to request the use of exc-c14n 
affect existing implementations? If the answer is yes, I prefer to defer
this modification to a subsequent edition of the spec.

I also think that mentioning exc-c14n is better than just striking out the 
text.

Tommy, Vamsi, ... comments?

Thanks!

-jose