- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:37:58 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: ext Andrey Nazarov <Andrey.Nazarov@oracle.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2/1/11 1:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi Marcos, > > On Jan/31/2011 2:18 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >> On 1/31/11 7:52 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> Andrey - on January 26, Marcos proposed changing the c14n algorithm in >>> [1] and [2] and notified the group in [3] that he updated the Editor's >>> Draft [ED] to reflect his proposal. He included rationale in [1]. >>> >>> Marcos - in what way(s) does your proposal break the signer and >>> validator conformance classes as defined in the June 2010 CR [CR]? >> >> It would remove all references and dependencies on XML >> Canonicalization 1.1 in favor of XML Canonicalization 1.0. Explicit >> <tranform> to Canonicalization 1.1 would no longer be needed (XML Dig >> Sig just defaults to 1.0). Everything else stays the same. > > If an "old" widget is signed according to [CR] i.e. uses the ExC14N > algorithm and a "new" validator is implemented according to the proposed > changes (now reflected in [ED), then what happens when this new > validator process this old widget? Based on what you and I just > discussed in IRC, I believe the validation will fail. Correct? Correct. > It would be useful if we had at least a general idea regarding the > number of widgets "in the wild" that are signed using the ExC14N > algorithm. If anyone has relevant data, please send it to this mail list. Absolutely! -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 16:38:39 UTC