Re: Canonical MicroXML

'single' ?
----
Stephen D Green



On 2 October 2012 14:37, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Why / in what sense "unique"? I think I know what is meant
>> but it could be taken the wrong way. Clearly two documents
>> can have identical canonical versions and therefore neither
>> be 'unique'.
>>
>
> But each c14n would be unique in respect to a particular transform.
>  James's wording is clearly talking about the range, not the domain.  In
> other words the output of a c14n transform is unique even though its inputs
> need not be.  I'm not sure it would be clearer to use wording to the effect
> that it's a many to one transform.
>
>
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
> Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
> http://wearekin.org
> http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
> http://copia.ogbuji.net
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
> http://twitter.com/uogbuji
>
>