Le 05-07-07 à 14:12, Paul Hoffman a écrit :
Without. That is explicitly the default for http://www.w3.org/TR/
2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/.
Where does it state that explicitly?
Just as with [XML-C14N] one may use the #WithComments parameter
to include the serialization of XML
At 2:25 PM -0400 7/11/05, Karl Dubost wrote:
I read
Just as with [XML-C14N] one may use the #WithComments
parameter to include the serialization of XML comments.
So it's a MAY, but it doesn't say that when the parameter is not
here that there's a MUST NOT include them.
H, that's
On 7/7/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Now that I understand this better, I believe that our text should read:
Thank you for catching this. You've saved us major pain!
+1
--
http://dannyayers.com
We should go into a little more detail.
Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My
preference would be without.
As I understand it, inherited xml:lang and xml:base attributes aren't
signed when you're using exclusive c14n. If we ended up allowing per-
entry signatures,
At 10:23 AM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My
preference would be without.
Without. That is explicitly the default for
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/.
As I understand it, inherited xml:lang and xml:base
On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:23 AM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My
preference would be without.
Without. That is explicitly the default for http://www.w3.org/TR/
2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/.
Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:23 AM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My
preference would be without.
Without. That is explicitly the default for http://www.w3.org/TR/
At 1:56 PM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:23 AM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My
preference would be without.
Without. That is explicitly the default for
At 03:12 05/07/08, Paul Hoffman wrote:
We are signing the bits only, not some interpretation of the bits. That
is true for the xml:base, the xml:lang, the xml:something-else, and so on.
Just a clarification that I may have made previously: XML Canonicalization
(both kinds) convert to UTF-8
Paul Hoffman wrote:
[[ NEW ]]
Section 6.5.1 of [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212] requires support
for Canonical XML. However, many people believe that Canonical XML
may be deprecated in the future, and many implementers do not use
it because signed XML documents enclosed in other
On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. I gravely misunderstood XML Canonicalization, and
as it has been explained to me now, XML Canonicalization would be a
disaster for Atom: what we want is Exclusive XML Canonicalization.
Urgh, I should have caught this.
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Now that I understand this better, I believe that our text should read:
Thank you for catching this. You've saved us major pain!
bob wyman
12 matches
Mail list logo
