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 15:33:28 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001114153143.02a96550@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: hal@finney.org
Cc: "Public XML Encryption List" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
At 21:59 11/13/2000 -0800, hal@finney.org wrote:
>The example I have
>in mind is a document author who is using XML for markup, and who
>encrypts sensitive portions of the document while it is in an insecure
>environment.

This is a good point regarding your scenario, however in Signature I think 
we realized that once something has gone off to be processed by other 
unknowns, it's very difficult to  communicate information outside the 
Informat Set (like a nuances of a particular serialization.) If you want 
human readability, the application could do another transform that removed 
redundancy and such...?


__
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 15:35:58 GMT

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