- From: Hiroshi Maruyama <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 02:43:19 +0900
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
- cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Joseph, I reviewed your post on the Syntax WG (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Jun/0075.html). I think you got my point wrong. The current WD does provide context independence of canonical forms. This is an important property if we want to allow signing a part (a subelement) of an XML document. The current WD seems to allow canonicalization of a whole document only. Am I wrong? Hiroshi -- Hiroshi Maruyama Manager, Network Applications, Tokyo Research Laboratory +81-462-73-4576, maruyama@jp.ibm.com Also Associate Professor, Dept. of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology +81-3-5734-3953, maruyama@cs.titech.ac.jp From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> on 99/06/22 03:55 AM To: Hiroshi Maruyama/Japan/IBM cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Subject: Re: Three Issues for C14N Consideration At 08:35 AM 6/20/99 +0900, Hiroshi Maruyama wrote: >After following the discussion between Don and James Clark, however, I >realized that James Clark's proposal can also be made context independent >as he points out. In the light of the increased readability as well as >avoidance of complexity of introducing the digest algorithm, I think it is >more reasonable and more preferable to have a C14N definition based on his >proposal, using generated prefixes such as "n1", "n2", ..., and so on for >EACH element. Thank you Hiroshi. I will report this back to the Syntax WG. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 13:44:08 UTC