- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 16:48:46 +0100
- To: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On 18 May 2010 14:53, mozer wrote: Hi, > I would probably better go for a p:hash extension for the moment but not the > way it is proposed > * @algorithm=pxp:hmac_sha @version=1 > * @param(key)= key > (see the pxp:hmac_sha instead of only pxp:hmac) Yes, I was also wondering why we had hmac here instead of hmac-sha. For what is worth, I would rather say pxp:hmac-sha, with an hyphen instead of an underscore. That's consistent with the existing QName, and with the actual name of HMAC-SHA. Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 15:49:39 UTC