- From: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:25:58 -0400
- To: "'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG '" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Here's part of a coworker's response to my ftf trip report: > I'm sure this is a picky point, but it took me a long time to figure out > that "c14n" was "canonicalization". Ok, convenient short-hand for > informal communication. But, it's actually in a tag in the spec, > <c14nalg>. Yikes! Yet, we have <transformations> instead of <t12ns>, > and the fairly ubiquitous term "signature" which could be replaced > with "s7e". The people who thought this up could probably also save a > lot of space/typing my storing only two digits for year values. While I don't feel that strongly on the issue, XML is supposed to be readable. I don't think the twelve bytes saved per signature are significant enough to warrant the abbreviation. But then, my favorite applications aren't particularly sensitive to size. -Mark Bartel, JetForm
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 1999 11:26:08 UTC