Re: EXProc proposal: pxp:hmac-sha1 (and pxp:hmac-md5)

I proposed "_" because "+" is not available
I would have prefered to have pxp:hmac+sha or pxp:hmac+md

But I won't lie in the road, against "-" as soon as consistency is kept

Regards,

Xmlizer

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> wrote:

> > > 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
>
>