- From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:56:26 -0400
- To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Cc: 'Frederick Hirsch' <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, 'XMLSec WG Public List' <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Indeed, my main concern is the "nasty stuff" and as Scott says, that is going to take some work (and time) to figure out. Ed On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 15:23 -0400, Scott Cantor wrote: > Ed Simon wrote on 2009-09-18: > > No, I do not have the level of understanding I would need. Beginning to > > get that level will require some discussion during our next telecon. > > I think I could write the text, but I need to know what part of c14n 1.1 is > throwing this off. I definitely agree about that misplaced comma and being > clear that arbitrary node sets != well-formed XML subtrees. Other than that, > I was led to believe that any time you get a node set, you do each node one > after the other and that's that. They just get concatenated, I think. > > The other issue I think you had was that the examples didn't include any of > the nasty stuff. Probably true, but would take some work to fix, and since > we aren't expecting to produce a new version of c14n 1.x at this point, is > that in scope to do? > > -- Scott > > >
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 19:57:03 UTC