- From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:12:22 -0400
- To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "Carl Ellison" <cme@jf.intel.com>, "XML Signature \(W3C/IETF\)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I don't think UPnP would be UPnP if endpoints had to dictate how servers create the data they send; it is not how the data is created that is the concern but what the data is coming out of the server. Just because an endpoint uses SAX doesn't mean a server can't use DOM. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com> (613) 726-9645 XMLsec Inc. Interested in XML Security Training and Consulting services? Visit "www.xmlsec.com". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com> To: <reagle@w3.org> Cc: "Carl Ellison" <cme@jf.intel.com>; "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:57 AM Subject: Re: minimal canonicalization > > > If you can constrain your process such that you know no intermediaries are > > introducing particular sorts of changes > > And the endpoint. It would be unfortunate if a UPnP device required all > UPnP servers to be implemented in such a style that a DOM-based approach > wouldn't work. > /r$ > >
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 11:13:24 UTC