- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:29:45 -0400
- To: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "XML Syntax WG" <w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org>
The XML Syntax WG has discussed whether the XML resulting from C14N should include an XML declaration describing the version of the XML generated by the C14N processor. [1] This discussion has happened in the context that the we do not even consider the original content's declaration since it is only an optional property of the Infoset -- and we decided the C14N XML will be a syntactical representation of a subset of the required Infoset. Consequently, what led to the decision of making that information optional? It is possible that the digital signature community will find this contextual information critical to the meaning of the document. (As an optional item, two documents which are similar aside from the declaration will be appear to be the same.) _____ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Jun/0065.html Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990617094605.01251e20@pop.intergate.bc.ca> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:47:13 -0700 To: "XML Syntax WG" <w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org> From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Subject: C14n issue N4 - XML declaration? Should the canonical form include the XML declaration? Subsidiary question: if so, which of the encoding and standalone declarations should it include? Let's hear opinions and nail this down next Wednesday. Minor pro: XML docs with XML declarations are more robustly interchanged Minor con: A couple of dozen extra bytes Serious issue: if we include the XML declaration, that makes the version of XML part of the canonical form. The corollory is that should there ever be an XML 1.1 or 2.0, no XML 1.1/2.0 document can ever be canonically equivalent to any XML 1.0 document. Is this a good or bad thing? Note: if we leave the XML Decl out, and specify that this C14n spec applies *only* to XML 1.0 documents, we can postpone the decision about whether XML1 and XML2 docs can ever be canonically equivalent to the time we write the XML2 c14n spec. Sounds good to me. -Tim _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 1999 14:29:47 UTC