W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > November 2000

Re: Serialization and canonicalization

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:25:17 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001114152208.02b22f08@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: "Public XML Encryption List" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
At 09:25 11/13/2000 +0900, Hiroshi Maruyama wrote:
>As long as the data model (or information set) is preserved, any
>serialization method will do.  C14N satisfies this property and
>is implemented for XML Signature anyway, I think it is reasonable
>to reuse the C14N standard.

Right.

>By the way, I believe this discussion is exactly why I insist that
>the processing model of XML Encryption should be defined using
>the XML InfoSet (or equivalent data model).  It may free us from
>confusing questions such as character encoding, default
>attribute values, external entities, data types, and so on.

I remember asking a question on this, thinking I understood once you 
answered, and now I remember my question again. Is the data model you speak 
of used to describe the encrypted content (for instance if we went beyond 
elements) or for the actual serialization? If for serialization, what 
exactly do you mean? Are you suggesting an alternative to Canonical XML 
(which is based on  XPath, not Infoset) that also addresses internet subset 
issues?


__
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 15:35:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:18 GMT