On Apr 17, 2009, at 13:19 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 13:24, Robin Berjon wrote:
Trying to separate the discussion from the change request: would
you be satisfied if requirements to perform C14N were removed and
reliance on XSD data types for definition purposes were replaced
with something less scary (though in this case this is a bit of a
FUD argument Henri, the referenced types aren't overwhelming)?
However, if that's not feasible, my next preferred option would
indeed be removing the requirement to perform canonicalization (i.e.
sign XML as binary with a detached traditional binary signature
block).
I will let the digsig experts comment on the feasibility of this.
As for the data types, I'd be satisfied if the datatypes were
defined in such a way that attribute value parsing algorithms and
conversion methods that a browser engine has to contain anyway were
reusable. This should include well-defined behavior in the case of
non-conforming input.
That's reasonable.
XSD which even allows leap seconds!
I like leap seconds, they're nice!
(Is it a FUD argument that XSD dates deviate from the value space
that is typically used in Posix date conversions between multi-unit
tuples and epoch seconds?)
No, that's not what I said. I know XSD painfully enough to know the
monsters that lurk there, and generally support defining things
without it if possible. I was referring to statements such as "unless
widget impls are supposed to bring in huge off-the-shelf XSD
machinery" when we're talking about ID, anyURI, string, integer,
base64Binary, dateTime. These certainly have issues, but they can
nevertheless be operated while drunk :)
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
