[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: canonicalization

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:04:02 +0100
• References: <1015032338.3309.3.camel@l...> <p04330103b8a7fd271d04@[192.168.254.4]> <1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...> <p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]> <3C829730.9070500@d...> <p04330106b8a85a1cf451@[192.168.254.4]> <3C82B00E.7080106@d...> <p04330109b8a86620c6fd@[192.168.254.4]> <3C834853.1000908@d...> <p04330100b8a92aa75aab@[192.168.254.4]> <3C8383A0.4020108@d...> <p04330101b8a9360c07dc@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020214

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> There is nothing preventing you from doing this today as part of your 
> local processes. You can take document A, merge the XIncludes to 
> produce document B, and then validate, canonicalize, encrypt, and/or 
> digitally sign document A and/or document B. Each process will have 
> the clear and unambiguous result defined by the specs.

Sure, but it might be interesting to do it in an interchangeable way.

> Just don't tell me that document A and document B are the same thing, 
> or expect that I will be satisfied with working only with document B 
> and never want to touch document A.

I really don't understand what you want to show here.

I won't take the risk of saying if A and B are the same document without 
a defininition of when documents are "the same".

And if I have my local process to produce document B and if document B 
is the interchange format which we've agreed to use, the way I am 
producing it is my own business.

Eric
-- 
See you in Seattle.
                                        http://knowledgetechnologies.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• References:
  • canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Next by Date: RE: Assumptions about URIs
• Previous by thread: Re: XInclude v. Entities (was Re: canonicalization)
• Next by thread: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread