- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:27:38 -0500
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>, dee3@torque.pothole.com, w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
On Friday, Jan 10, 2003, at 11:23 US/Eastern, Rich Salz wrote: >> Would there be any value in specifying both a distinct transform and >> a canonicalization algorithm ? There would be very little extra work >> to do this (probably just defining a couple of extra URLs) and it >> might address the potential problems you describe below. > > I'm not sure this would be a good thing, as it would pretty much > require vendors to implement both. A fair point, though assuming a vendor has already implemented the transform and exclusive c14n then implementing the combination should be pretty straightforward. > I prefer the URI, and suggesting including XSLT as a non-normative > appendix. Advanced tricks like joseph mentioned (lookahead for common > XSLT transforms) can be ipmlemented by recognizing the transform uri. A non-normative appendix might be a good idea, will give it some thought. Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 12:27:18 UTC