Andreas
The intent of the proposed change is to remove ambiguity and thus
enable interop - not to make it more complicated.
I think having a clear profile with fewer choices should make it
simpler for implementation.
This may be on the agenda for the call this Thursday.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 7, 2010, at 6:04 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
from the implementors perspective these modifications don't
introduce too much trouble. But I'm a little bit concerned about
the explicit ban of canonicalizations for 'external' documents like
config.xml.
It is, in the first place, the default behavior of the XML Signature
Reference Processing Model for external documents.
You're right that there's a possible design choice here to *permit*
(not
mandate) canonicalization regardless. It sounds like you suggest that
the WG make that choice, by not prohibiting use of C14N for XML
content,
but simply leaving it open?
