- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:43:17 -0400
- To: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
- Cc: "'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG '" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 11:25 99/09/14 -0400, Mark Bartel wrote: >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. c14n is quite common in the Web community and spreads like a virus once people first see it. comes from i18n (internationalization), can be generalized for A(X-3)ion words. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 1999 12:43:25 UTC