- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:12:18 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: Webb Roberts <webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu>, public-xml-id@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote: > The type of canonicalization that is used in signatures does not have > the problem that gave a conflict with all non-inherited xml:* > attributes. So i doubt there would be any resistance, myself. Actually, *a* type of canonicalization used in signatures does not have the problem. Specifically exclusive XML caonicalization does not have this problem. However regular inclusive XML canonicalization is also used in signatures and it does have this problem. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:12:29 UTC