- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:09:07 -0400
- To: "Peter Lipp" <Peter.Lipp@iaik.at>
- Cc: "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig@W3. Org" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 14:57 99/08/26 +0200, Peter Lipp wrote: >> I thought I had understood, but the more I think about it the less I do: >> what do we need that for in the first place? To save some space for some >> apps that tend to manipulate and store these things in different >> forms (DOM) only? Couldn't they simply save the original data somewhere? >Just to add: I do NOT have a problem understanding canonicalization required >by different character-sets, different line-breaks, and things like that. >Obviously necessary as we are talking about text-based documents. I was just >wondering if anything beyond that was really an requirement (like pulling in >external stuff). My pragmatic opinion on this (aside from all the interesting discussion): If we have any mandatory to implement c14n at this stage, I don't think it should do anything beyond character composition/encoding/CR-LF processing. Additionally, we should specify (or adopt) it ASAP and ensure its been widely implemented/tested/used before normatively referencing/including it. Syntax c14n, DOM-HASH, or whatever can evolve and be standardized as appropriate by another WG, or by this one once we've completed the core signature by December. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 10:09:17 UTC