> -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] > Sent: 01 October 2002 17:03 > To: Martin Gudgin > Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Rich Salz; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms > > > On Tuesday, Oct 1, 2002, at 11:45 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > > >> > >> Our spec says that: > >> > >> <myns:myHeaderBlock xmlns:myns="..." > >> env:mustUnderstand="false">...</myns:myHeaderBlock> > >> > >> should be treated identically to > >> > >> <myns:myHeaderBlock xmlns:myns="...">...</myns:myHeaderBlock> > >> > >> and that an intermediary can remove > env:mustUnderstand="false" AIIs > >> from header blocks in messages it forwards. > > > > I think one of the effects of my proposal is to prohibit the above. > > > Ah, OK I just re-read it - good. > > I think my comment still applies to e.g. env:mustUnderstand="1" vs > env:mustUnderstand="true". You still need canonicalization to get a > signature that will validate following an intermediary switching from > "1" to "true" as we allow - just not quite such a radical > canonicalization. Again, given that I say 'must preserve ALL of the infoset properties' I don't think the above is allowed either. I can't see how else sigs will work given that, AFAIR, c14n et.al. are not cognizant of type and hence do NOT know that true == 1 == true. GudgeReceived on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:08:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:21 UTC