Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In the crypto world, canonicalization (C14N) doesn't mean "the ONLY way" to write something, but "a STANDARD way" to write something. I don't know what tutorial you read, but the phrase you quoted is misleading. There are several types of canonicalization: the "standard" (or first one defined :), with and without comments. Exclusive C14N, which is useful when you are embedding an XML fragment inside other XML (e.g., SOAP) and you have to be careful about namespace declarations; UDDI has a "schema-aware" one, that allows for defaults, e.g., and there will probably be one for SOAP, that ignores whitespace between header elements, for example. Yes it is a pain that there are so many, and that interop is therefore an issue. I would like to see C14N go away in favor of EXCL-C14N, but I doubt that will happen since C14N was "first." UDDI/XSD-C14N will probably be as succesful as the rest of UDDI, and SOAP-C14N it's too soon to tell; but unless SOAP headers become real important, it will not be needed. Hope this helps. /r$
|
