- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:25:17 -0500
- To: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Public XML Encryption List" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
At 09:25 11/13/2000 +0900, Hiroshi Maruyama wrote: >As long as the data model (or information set) is preserved, any >serialization method will do. C14N satisfies this property and >is implemented for XML Signature anyway, I think it is reasonable >to reuse the C14N standard. Right. >By the way, I believe this discussion is exactly why I insist that >the processing model of XML Encryption should be defined using >the XML InfoSet (or equivalent data model). It may free us from >confusing questions such as character encoding, default >attribute values, external entities, data types, and so on. I remember asking a question on this, thinking I understood once you answered, and now I remember my question again. Is the data model you speak of used to describe the encrypted content (for instance if we went beyond elements) or for the actual serialization? If for serialization, what exactly do you mean? Are you suggesting an alternative to Canonical XML (which is based on XPath, not Infoset) that also addresses internet subset issues? __ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 15:35:55 UTC