Thanks for the feedback. I'll see if I can't reverify that observation. I'll also check with the lxml authors to see if they are utilizing that test suite, if my observations are repeatable. -A
Sent from my iPad > On Feb 23, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Aleksey Sanin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Curious if lxml passes the W3C test suite for the cannonicalization :) > > Aleksey > >> On 2/23/15 10:14 AM, Alex Boese wrote: >> I was noticing that exclusive canonicalization seems to differ between the >> lxml and xmlsec implementations. In my observations, if I exclusive c14n an >> entire xml document utilizing the lxml, namespaces that are unused are >> completely dropped. With xmlsec, if I do the same, they remain. >> >> By unused, I'm meaning a namespace with prefix that has no matching prefixed >> tags in children tags. >> >> Is this deliberate behavior? If so, why the difference? >> >> -Alex >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec >> _______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [email protected] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
