- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:44:08 -0400
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec@w3.org
Isn't the answer here that XML needs to remained well-formed, so no? regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:36 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > > fyi, this came in as a comment on Canonical XML. > > FWIW, I'll make sure that public-xmlsec-comments gets subscribed to > the comment mailing lists for all the specs that we are chartered to > deal with, to make it easier to follow them all. > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Amol Patil <amolspatil@gmail.com> ----- > > From: Amol Patil <amolspatil@gmail.com> > To: www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org > Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:14:06 +0100 > Subject: xml canonicalization - proposition - elimination of > element name from end tag > List-Id: <www-xml-canonicalization-comments.w3.org> > X-Spam-Level: > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ > 9744f7ad0808141214w680af2dcsb443c034d57d48e3@mail.gmail.com> > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6 > > Can xml canonicalization further be extended to eliminate the need > of the > name of the element in end tag / make it optional? > > Objective here is to reduce the size of overall xml content > > E.g. > <RootElement> > <FirstChildElement> > <FirstChildOfFirstChildElement></> > <SecondChildOfFirstChildElement></> > </> > <SecondChildElement></> > </> > > There is a slight loss of readability here at the gain of reduced > content > size. > > Thanks > > ----- End forwarded message ----- >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 14:45:09 UTC