>> "One is "having the same bytes". �That's a strict interpretation.
�Another is "having the same digital signature". That's looser"
�
I'd disagree with that statement, David.
�
To have the same digital signature it would have to have the same
bytes,
>> "We always had stated that we must be able to get back "the same
thing"."
�
That's true, Rob.. we've always included round-tripability in our
conversations, but (and again, please correct me if I seem to be missing or
misunderstanding something), "the same thing"
>> "It has been mentioned before, as a way to clarify what qualifies as
successful round tripping."
�
David..�
�
I wasn't doubting that it was ever mentioned. My concern was that we
may not be keeping the additional challenge that signing introduces
>> "If we want the RDF to be an equal sibling to xml and JSON then
round tripping needs to be signature safe."
�
David..
�
Lloyd's comment points out the need for a significant and non-trivial
"uptick" in the level of care that will have to be taken
