- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:49:33 -0400
- To: "''IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG ' '" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I agree with Mark. There nothing wrong with xNNy type stuff in our informal discussions or early drafts but I don't think they shouldappear in any final documents. Donald From: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca> Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <199909141658.MAA23605@www19.w3.org> Message-ID: <91F20911A6C0D2118DF80040056D77A2032947@arren.cpu1634.adsl.bellglobal.co m> To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr. '" <reagle@w3.org> Cc: "''IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG ' '" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:57:44 -0400 >That's what I had responded to my coworker (I have been involved in i18n in >the past). However, it "feels inappropriate" to me to use the abbreviation >in the standard, but as I said I don't feel strongly about it. My thinking >is that "c14n" is pretty opaque for somebody who isn't familiar with that >method of abbreviation, and since there isn't a need to abbreviate we should >spell it out. I wouldn't argue anything that you've said. > >-Mark Bartel, JetForm > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. >To: Mark Bartel >Cc: 'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG ' >Sent: 9/14/99 12:43 PM >Subject: Re: minor naming point > >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 13:49:38 UTC