- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:47:39 -0500
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: jose.kahan@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
On Thursday 15 December 2005 13:46, John Boyer wrote: > 3) The W3C community seems to be interested in less rigor, not more. > The thing that's really busted, IMO, is the volatility of namespaces, I have to agree with John on this point. Yet, unfortunately, this is the world that we live in and unless we can convince the world not to be changing the meaning of documents after the fact, we will continue living in. (XML is guilty, but for that matter, so is Unicode!) However, since our concern is security, I would hope we not contribute to the trend. Granted, we have had to make compromises, even issue erratum for mistakes, but when a change is purposeful and explicit like this (rather than a mistake or oversight on our part), I would argue for a new algorithm. John, granted that it is a messy world, what is the argument against the new algorithm?
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2005 13:47:59 UTC