- From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:31:11 -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>
yes that is better, given that it is FPWD why don' t we use that, along with note that it is subject to change. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 21, 2009, at 5:24 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 21 Oct 2009, at 23:18, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > >> 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# > > My guess is that we'll be changing this significantly and that it's > too early to give it a "meaningful" namespace. Hence the question. > > If we think that we should use a "final" namespace, then I'd propose / > 2009/xmldsig2# >
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 21:31:57 UTC