- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:17:52 -0500
- To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, merlin@baltimore.ie
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Ok, I recall that Merlin did object to the level of specificity (comma seperated) but even then noted the need for a "token" to represent the default namespace nodes. I don't think "" is sufficient with a whitespace delimited list because then its awkward to specify, for example, n1 and "" : "n1 " . I'm not sure where we lost the default namespace (anyone else recall?) but we need to account for it again. Do we coin a token, go back to John's commas, or something else? (Merlin?) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0036.html On Thursday 10 January 2002 13:22, John Boyer wrote: > Joseph Reagle wrote: > However, I wonder what if their is a semantic difference between a > missing > InclusiveNamespace PrefixList and one equal to "" ? > > <jb> > Yes, there should be, though it is no longer specified. In the 5 July > 2001 draft, I had the following text for #3 (Pertinent meant that it > would be in the output): > > The Exclusive XML Canonicalization method receives an additional string > parameter UnsuppressedNamespacePrefixList containing a comma separated > list of namespace prefixes that are not to be suppressed (e.g. > "ns1,ns2,ns3" with no intervening whitespace). Any namespace node that > declares a namespace prefix in this list is automatically pertinent. If > there is an empty entry in the UnsuppressedNamespacePrefixList (e.g. > ",ns1" or "ns1," or "ns1,,ns2"), then default namespace nodes are > automatically pertinent. > </jb> -- 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 Thursday, 10 January 2002 15:18:02 UTC