- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:36:00 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.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
> A fair point, though assuming a vendor has already implemented the > transform and exclusive c14n then implementing the combination should be > pretty straightforward. Sure, but if a vendor doesn't do transforms (or doesn't do them easily), then having a transform version requires them to do something like canonicalize and hash the transform to see if it's something they can short-circuit. That can be expensive. Far easier to just do string compare and call your "fast xslt" if you're that kind of vendor. My meta-point is that having two ways of doing the same thing is bad, and that uri->xslt is simpler and safe for folks that work that way, rather than xslt->code-implementing-the-uri. /r$
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 12:36:02 UTC