- From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:36:13 -0500
- To: "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>, <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I support adding xml:space and xml:lang for similar reasons to Christian's. Regards, Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de> To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>; <reagle@w3.org> Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:45 PM Subject: Re: Whitespace > > > --On Dienstag, 8. Januar 2002 21:26 -0500 Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com> > wrote: > > > I agree, allowing both xml:lang and xml:space is better. > > I agree that the schema should be extended to allow somthing like this: > > <ds:Object xml:space="preserve"> <a> > <dontEvenThinkToIndentThatYouBadProcessor /> > <dontTouchMySurroundingSpaces /> > </a> > > > </ds:Object> > > Yes, that should (or even must?) be allowed. People should be able to > protect their ds:Signatures agains wild'n'mad processors who want to > beautify/indent every XML 'document' they process. > > I don't think that this has (negative) security implications, it'll even > give Signatures to chance to be more stable - especially when you from SOAP > folks and pipes of SOAP processors doing wild things with the msgs. > > Christian > >
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 16:37:16 UTC