- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:30:02 -0400
- To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Cc: "Mark Bartel" <mbartel@thistle.ca>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 10:35 9/21/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote: >My way of thinking is that an algorithm performing Canonical XML must return >an error if it dedects relative URIs in the input. Maybe I am wrong, Joseph? My intent was to think that there would be an error. However, I hadn't considered the idea of saying there is a canonical form, it just won't necessarily be consistent/interoperable. This sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the plenary decision, but then it seems we aren't doing anyone a favor. If we're going to "permit" relative URIs when we should be encouraging their deprecation, at least we should do it consistently...? (More later). BTW: I understand our treatment of this issue was briefly discussed at the XML Plenary this week with the following two sorts of positions >...the issue of the c14n spec defining a canonical form for > <aDoc xmlns="../foo"/> > > - it's against the plenary decision > (from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, among others) > > - it seems reasonable, even given the plenary decision > (from Noah Mendelsohn, among others) __ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2000 14:30:20 UTC