Re: Widget Signature modification proposal (revised) wrote:
> from the implementors perspective these modifications don't introduce too much trouble. But I'm a little bit concerned about the explicit ban of canonicalizations for 'external' documents like config.xml.

It is, in the first place, the default behavior of the XML Signature 
Reference Processing Model for external documents.

You're right that there's a possible design choice here to *permit* (not 
mandate) canonicalization regardless. It sounds like you suggest that 
the WG make that choice, by not prohibiting use of C14N for XML content, 
but simply leaving it open?

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 10:04:34 UTC