- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:03:12 -0500
- To: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 23:28 00/01/21 -0500, Ed Simon wrote: >Two areas we know we need to explore are the octet representation >of characters (eg. the character model) To that end, the snippets of the relative reports are below: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2000Jan/0000.html Relative to the rest of XML C14N, I believe Unicode C14N is relatively complex and resource intensive. It will make a significant difference to either code size or speed (you can probably implement slowly in a little code, or fast in a lot of code). In the context of its use for digital signatures, XML C14N needs to be performed in scenarios where processing resources are strictly limited. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2000Jan/0001.html The overhead of normalization is not large in code space or data space or time. I have provided a non-normative explanation of the algorithm at ... In general, a table space of about 8K bytes is involved, and the process is O(N) except on pathological data. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 18:03:25 UTC