- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:54:24 -0400
- To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
My personal opinion in this is to go with #2 and suitable warnings that realtive URI namespaces are flakey. I think of C14N as an algorithmic transform of well-formed XML into well-formed XML. While the treatedment of relative URI namespaces may be undefined, it is hard to think of any reasonable future meaning which might be attached to them, ranging from them being a fatal error to being realtive to xmlbase, which wouldn't be the same for both non-canonical and canonical forms. Donald ===================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 140 Forest Avenue +1 978-562-2827(h) Hudson, MA 01749 USA +1 508-261-5434(w)
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2000 15:51:18 UTC