- From: Christopher R. Maden <crism@exemplary.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:57:22 -0800
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>, "Eastlake Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, "Ed Simon" <ed.simon@entrust.com>
At 1:25 PM 3/27/0, John Boyer wrote: >serialize(), however, cannot output UTF-8 because it is an XPath function, >which must output a string. The details of what that means are specific to >the XPath implementation itself. Transcoding to UTF-8 is not an action that >fits within XPath. Strings are series of characters, not of bytes. The encoding is not relevant. I'm still not understanding why the digest can't be based on a canonical serialization of whatever result comes from the XPath expression. Every XML implementation must support UTF-8, so it's not any kind of overhead to require it here. There are issues beyond encoding, like attribute ordering, that have to be mandated in serialization, so the win of having the serialize() function seems negligible. -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Yomu One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2000 03:52:25 UTC