2009/5/12 Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
This did get me wondering about the issue that if there's two semantically
identical forms for the same information, then should we ever wish to have
clients sign the privacy
On May 12, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
If it comes to signing, we can
specify that unordered elements are to be ordered by some algorithm.
Yuk. I rather specify a data preservation rule.
-- Kurt
On Tue May 12 08:31:44 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
That's another problem. As Peter pointed out to me earlier, no XMPP
spec ever enforced a particular child order (if the order wouldn't
make a semantic difference in XMPP). If it comes to signing, we can
specify that unordered elements are to be
Yuk. I rather specify a data preservation rule.
+1. I was assuming that this rule would be there if we were to have signing.
cheers,
Remko
On May 12, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Yuk. I rather specify a data preservation rule.
+1. I was assuming that this rule would be there if we were to have
signing.
Yes, the rule would apply only to signed data.
If a client adds/edits a privacy list
a) may a server reorder the list's item elements (sorted by the order
attribute for example)? That is, the client saves
list name='somelist'
item type='jid' value='pa...@example.org' action='deny' order='5'/
item type='jid' value='tyb...@example.com'
Also, I'm wondering why the order attribute is used on privacy lists'
items, instead of using the implicit order of the items.
I always wondered that myself. I assume it's historical baggage. A
pity though, because it makes things needlessly complicated to
implement on both client and server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/11/09 1:59 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Also, I'm wondering why the order attribute is used on privacy lists'
items, instead of using the implicit order of the items.
I always wondered that myself. I assume it's historical baggage. A
pity
Can you trust the order of items?
If you couldn't, then generated XHTML-IM pages would be quite interesting.
cheers,
Remko
On Mon May 11 15:10:04 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Can you trust the order of items?
This did get me wondering about the issue that if there's two
semantically identical forms for the same information, then should we
ever wish to have clients sign the privacy list, we have a C14N
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 5/11/09 1:59 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Also, I'm wondering why the order attribute is used on privacy lists'
items, instead of using the implicit order of the items.
I always wondered that myself. I assume it's
On Monday 11 May 2009 16:28:00 Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
Can you trust the order of items?
Err, explain to me why you wouldn't. Order of nodes (except attributes
on an element) is significant in XML.
I've heard that
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Justin Karneges
justin-keyword-jabber.093...@affinix.com wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009 16:28:00 Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
Can you trust the order of items?
Err, explain to me why you
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
This did get me wondering about the issue that if there's two semantically
identical forms for the same information, then should we ever wish to have
clients sign the privacy list, we have a C14N problem.
Well, semantical
14 matches
Mail list logo
