On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote: >> Dear Web Apps WG, >> Opera would like to provide some feedback based on our implementation >> experience of the Widgets Digsig specification. >> >> Generally, we found that the specification is implementable but have >> significant concerns about the requirement on XML Canonicalization 1.1. >> Basically, we found that in practice you don't need it for this version of >> the spec as widget signatures do not make use of the things Canonicalization >> 1.1 addresses. >> >> We would like to propose the specification be changed to use XML >> Canonicalization 1.0 throughout the specification. > > To be clear, we mean: > > XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments): > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 > >> If other implementers have found the same thing (i.e., they don't require >> Canonicalization 1.1), then please lets start a discussion about what >> changes need to be made to the specification and the potential impact of >> using Canonicalization 1.0 exclusively throughout. >> >> If we get rapid agreement, then we can move to updating the spec, changing >> the test cases, and republishing as a new LC ASAP. I've updated the editor's draft of the spec to use Canonicalization 1.0 throughout for people's consideration. I would like to call a teleconf for discussion next week to move this to LC as soon as possible. -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/ http://datadriven.com.auReceived on Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:02:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:16 UTC