• To: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>
• Subject: Re: Canonicalization software
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:49:46 -0500
• Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <a0602040dbc4413758d96@[10.10.11.4]>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0402020007490.31828-100000@s...><p06010200bc43dac26600@[192.168.254.4]><a0602040cbc43ef0803be@[10.10.11.4]><p06010205bc4405766e74@[192.168.254.4]><a0602040dbc4413758d96@[10.10.11.4]>

At 2:56 PM +0000 2/2/04, Robin LaFontaine wrote:

>That makes sense, and is nice and simple. I had imagined these tools 
>were more advanced! I guess this means not many people are using 
>canonicalizers commercially.

I think most of the work has gone into generating and verifying 
digital signatures without stopping in the middle to check the 
canonical XML on its own.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• References:
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Canonicalization software
• Next by Date: Re: Canonicalization software
• Previous by thread: Re: Canonicalization software
• Next by thread: Re: Canonicalization software
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread