• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: canonical xml
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:25:50 +1100
• References: <5BA3B65DED5F18459100E94091271F93FAD1DD@bby1exm01>

 From: "Jon Steeves" <Jon_Steeves@p...>
 
> Doesn't the existence of a special version of canonical xml mean that there is no 
> canonical xml?

No, it means there are multiple canons (lists) for different purposes.  This is another
capitalization issue: Canonical XML is not the only canonical XML, just as 
XML Schemas are not the only XML schemas, and the XML Infoset is not the only
XML infoset. 

Cheers
Rick Jellife

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: canonical xml
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: canonical xml
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • canonical xml
    • From: Jon Steeves <Jon_Steeves@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re:DTD Design
• Next by Date: RE: ANN: Open XPath NG mailing list
• Previous by thread: Re: canonical xml
• Next by thread: Re: canonical xml
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread