Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Danny Ayers
On 7/7/05, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Now that I understand this better, I believe that our text should read: > > Thank you for catching this. You've saved us major pain! +1 -- http://dannyayers.com

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Mark Nottingham
We should go into a little more detail. Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My preference would be without. 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,

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Paul Hoffman
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 . As I understand it, inherited xml:lang and xml:base

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Mark Nottingham
On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: 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 .

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread James M Snell
Mark Nottingham wrote: On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: 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

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 1:56 PM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote: On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: 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

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Martin Duerst
At 03:12 05/07/08, Paul Hoffman wrote: >We are signing the bits only, not some interpretation of the bits. That is true for the xml:base, the xml:lang, the xml:something-else, and so on. Just a clarification that I may have made previously: XML Canonicalization (both kinds) convert to UTF-8 f

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 8:43 AM +0900 7/8/05, Martin Duerst wrote: Just a clarification that I may have made previously: XML Canonicalization (both kinds) convert to UTF-8 from whatever encoding your document or fragment is, so essentially, we are signing characters, not bits. Er, right. And we change the bits aga

Atom format progress

2005-07-07 Thread Tim Bray
The Atom Format draft was considered by the IESG today, and there remain some outstanding DISCUSS issues, see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1681&filename=draft-ietf-atompub-format https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? comm

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-01.txt

2005-07-07 Thread Mark Nottingham
On 04/07/2005, at 6:18 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:Really good work!Thanks!Why not using an xs:boolean for fh:stateful? hence allowing values 0, 1, true and false.I did it this way because I'm not a huge XML Schema fan :)At this point, stateful is effectively xs:boolean with a constraint on the lexical