- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:23 -0400
- To: "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
> I agree that inheritAll is not required - it was really a bug, we didn't > consider xml:base last time, and the xml:id spec came out after C141.0 so we > couldn't have considered that. > > But what about "none" - That is the option to simulate Exclusive Canonical > XML 1.0. Don't we still need that ? Yes. Thomas can certainly speak for his own point of view, but I think he just meant not having options that represented obviously unintended behavior just to say that you can manipulate 2.0 to look like 1.0. -- Scott
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 18:58:54 UTC