[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Genx c14n?
At 9:59 AM -0800 1/26/04, Tim Bray wrote: >Q: Should genx produce canonical XML output? > >I've worked on a couple projects in recent months where the XML >messages would sometimes or always need to be signed, and I'm >developing the general feeling that the world holds a *lot* of dsig >technology; in private correspondence with some folks here I've >heard horror stories about what people do to get canonical XML: >parse, load into DOM, reserialize (a horror story in a high-volume >app). Yes. The obvious solution here is to move to a streaming canonicalizer. I don't know if any such exist. Probably wouldn't be hard to write one though. So I had the impression that if genx produced canonical XML that would be A Good Thing particularly if the cost was low. The idea doesn't seem to be getting much of a welcome here. > I think the obvious solution is to add a function that turns canonicalization on or off, with the default being on. Not having done serious work in C for almost ten years, I won't presume to say what that function should look like. This does impose some burden on implementers but no more than just allowing it to be on. Canonical output is much harder to implement than non-canonical output. However, if you really want a lightweight, 80/20 API maybe you should simply leave canonicalization to special purpose tools. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|