- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 05:10:09 -0400
- To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> > 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. Looks good. I also prefer pxp:hmac-sha instead of using the underscore. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Principal Software Engineer EMC Corporation toman_vojtech@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 09:10:55 UTC