Re: canonicalize?

It appears to me that you have coupled canonicalize and XML
Signature/Encryption in your mind.  If so, allow me to encourage you to
de-couple them.  There are other uses for canonicalize besides XML
Signature/Encryption.  p:compare is one such example.

my $0.02,

James Garriss
http://garriss.blogspot.com




From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:47:54 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Subject: Re: canonicalize?
Resent-From: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:48:51 +0000

James Garriss <james@garriss.org> writes:

> As I've work with p:compare, I noticed that it not only compared content
> (elements, attributes, etc) but also formatting (spaces, indents, etc).
> Laying aside whether that's a good thing or not, it seems to me that this
> might well be an issue for some user.  It also seems that being able to
> canonicalize the XML would solve the problem.  And of course, being able to
> canonicalize is a step required XML Signature.
>
> Is there a canonicalize capability in the current XProc WD?  I couldn't find
> one.
>
> If not, any chance of there being one in version.next?

There's every chance of having it in V.next. Whether it makes it into
V1 depends, in part at least, on how we resolve the
encryption/decription issues.

Unfortunately, the confluence of trains, tunnels, and conflicting
meetings prevented me from engaging the XML Security WG on this topic
today. So next week, maybe.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The function of the imagination is not
http://nwalsh.com/            | to make strange things settled, so much
                              | as it is to make settled things
                              | strange.--G. K. Chesterton