- From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:18:11 -0400
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
instead of experimental why not xmldsig2, so we don't have to change it later. experimental is not very meaningful e.g. http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/xmldsig2# Thanks for reviewing this carefully. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 21, 2009, at 5:10 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > I'm working on the XML Signature 2.0 draft publication right now > (publication date is tomorrow), and see that we're using the following > namespaces in the XML Signature 2.0 draft: > http://www.w3.org/2010/xmlsec/xmldsig2 > http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/2010/xmlsec/xmldsig2 > Also, we seem to be using this URI to identify xml-c14n2: > http://www.w3.org/2010/xmlsec/xml-c14n20 > > The namespaces for Signature 2.0 are entirely too long. For C14N2, > I'd like to choose something that (a) matches the shortname, and (b) > isn't yet the final identifier. > > Unless I hear strong objections, I'll change these namespaces and > identifiers as follows... > > Algorithm identifier for the current version of c14n2 to dated URI of > spec (to be changed later): > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xml-c14n2-20091022/ > Namespace for XML dsig2: > http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/experimental# > > (The last namespace is one that we've previously used as an > experimental namespace.) > > If you want something else, let me know ASAP. > > Thanks, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 21:18:52 UTC