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 attributes aren't signed when you're using exclusive c14n. If we ended up allowing per-entry signatures, we need to give guidance that xml:lang and xml:base should be explicitly included in the signed content if they are important.
Why? We are signing bags of bits. Why add those from the outside?
It may be helpful to give guidance about the usage of the InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList, especially with default namespaces.
The whole purpose of using exclusive XML is to not need to guess about what is and is not in the bag of bits being hashed.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
