Re: Widget Signature modification proposal (revised)


The intent of the proposed change is to remove ambiguity and thus  
enable interop - not to make it more complicated.

I think having a clear profile with fewer choices should make it  
simpler for implementation.

This may be on the agenda for the call this Thursday.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Apr 7, 2010, at 6:04 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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 11:56:16 UTC