- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:06:29 +0200
- To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
- Cc: xproc-dev@w3.org
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:53 AM, <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Fuller [mailto:james.fuller.2007@gmail.com] >> I would stump up for just defining exproc:hmac-sha1 on the algorithm >> option on existing p:hash instread of a new step? Afterall it is >> defined as a Qname ... which does make me think of what namespace the >> existing options are in ;) > > I was thinking about this, too, but my feeling is that would be twisting > of p:hash. In my opinion, p:hash is an implementation of a hash > function, whereas things like HMAC-SHA1 apply a hash function > iteratively. yes, but the nice thing about xproc steps is we don't *have* to map them directly onto functions all the time ;) ... I think its natural place to put it though we need to ensure we get the version option defined as well for it. J
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 08:07:09 UTC