• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,"XML Developer List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Genx c14n?
• From: "Paul Sumner Downey" <Paul.Downey@w...>
• Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:49:06 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <5EE49890-5029-11D8-A716-000A95A51C9E@t...>

"Yes, the world needs this!"

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...]
Sent: 26 January 2004 17:59
To: XML Developer List
Subject:  Genx c14n?


I think we're getting to the point where the most productive next step 
is to implement the library and see how it works in practice.  Except 
for one issue:

Q: Should genx produce canonical XML output?

I've worked on a couple projects in recent months where the XML 
messages would sometimes or always need to be signed, and I'm 
developing the general feeling that the world holds a *lot* of dsig 
technology; in private correspondence with some folks here I've heard 
horror stories about what people do to get canonical XML: parse, load 
into DOM, reserialize (a horror story in a high-volume app).  So I had 
the impression that if genx produced canonical XML that would be A Good 
Thing particularly if the cost was low.  The idea doesn't seem to be 
getting much of a welcome here.

Would anyone like to take this opportunity to shout "Yes, the world 
needs this!" or "No, the denominator of the cost/benefit ratio is 
zero!".

Cheers, Tim Bray  http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/

• References:
  • Genx c14n?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Microsoft files for XML patents, says C|Net
• Next by Date: Re: Genx c14n?
• Previous by thread: Re: Genx c14n?
• Next by thread: Re: Genx c14n?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread