Joe Hildebrand wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > >> All ordering operations are performed using the "i;octet" >> collation, as defined in >> section 9.3 of RFC4790. > > fine.
Works for me. Thanks to Dave for the spec language. >> Which makes me wonder - we might need to normalize unicode input, if >> there really is any. capabilityprep, anyone? > > They're URIs, right? Don't they have defined comparability already? Sure seems so. In fact the old jabber:iq:* and jabber:x:* thingies aren't proper URIs (well, there is no jabber URI scheme) but they look like URIs so they'll work. >>> I'm not sure why readability is important here. It's never going on >>> the wire. >> Absolutely, but the result of the hash is. Therefore, it's useful for >> debugging purposes that two hash inputs can be compared by eye to see >> why they don't match. I believe this has been shown to be a bit of a >> lack in things like DIGEST-MD5, for example. > > Fine. Let's specify it really closely, though, including precisely > which line-endings to use, and the like. +1 Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
