- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:08:34 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Comments on:
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xml-exc-c14n.html
Ed: paragraphs 2-n of Terminology I would break off into a separate section
called "Concepts" as Terminology typically serves an editorial purposes and
little more.
Sub: Instead of relying upon the URI of the document as the algorithm
identifier (as we did in Canonical XML) this specification should define
one, as we did with namespaces. That way, as long as the spec is relatively
stable through editorial revisions, we don't have to change the identifier.
I propose:
http://www.w3.org/2001/07/xml-exc-c14n
Sub: Since subsetting is RECOMMENDED in Canonical XML, I presume it would be
here as well -- as would the UnsuppressedNameSpacePrefix. (I'm not sure I
agree with Merlin (haven't made up my mind) that we don't need to say a
comma separated list. It's good to know what the inputs to an implementation
be they a string, nodeset, URI, etc. If this is a string, we should probably
say it's encoding in any case).
--
Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 18:08:47 UTC