- From: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
To me it is more of reducing a surprise factor. Some people use "S11" prefix for Soap, some use "soap" prefix, some use "s". When I tell them the choice of the prefix affect canonicalization they are surprised. It is the same logic as whitespace in content. People always think that canonicalization will remove the whitespace, but it doesn't. A very old draft version of canonicalization used to have prefix rewriting - see http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000119.html#sec-namespaces But later version removed it see http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000601#NoNSPrefixRewriting, because of the QNames in content problem. If we can solve the QNames in content problem at least to a reasonable extent, then we can reintroduce the prefix rewriting. Pratik -----Original Message----- From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:21 AM To: Pratik Datta Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org Subject: RE: Prefix rewriting considerations > We have two opposing requirements here. Sure, probably more than two. What's not clear to me is how rewriting prefixes addresses any compelling use case other than "JAXB is broken". -- Scott
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 17:54:58 UTC