- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:31:20 -0400
- To: "ext pratik.datta@oracle.com" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
I believe xmlspec is a much better choice than html since it eliminates much of the manual maintenance work. I also agree on approach for transforms, refer back to 1.1 regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:18 PM, ext pratik.datta@oracle.com wrote: > I am figuring out the format for writing the initial draft of the > 2.0 specs. > > As we had discussed in F2F, the whole 2.0 transform mechanism will > plugin as a new transform. So all the 1.x transforms will still be > supported. But I am thinking of producing a new XML Signature 2.0 > draft, which only includes this new transform, and not include any of > the 1.x transforms, rather the 2.0 draft will just point to relevant > sections of 1.x. This way if we decide to update any of the transforms > for 1.1, we don't have to change in two places. > > I will also be writing up a draft of XML Canonicalization 2.0. I am > planning to use xmlspec format for both these drafts. > > Pratik >
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 17:32:11 UTC