Re: minimal canonicalization
"Ed Simon" <[email protected]> Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:12:22 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.xmldsig |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <004c01c233ed$af7f3390$f2a0fea9@DJQC7111> |
I don't think UPnP would be UPnP if endpoints had to dictate how servers create the data they send; it is not how the data is created that is the concern but what the data is coming out of the server. Just because an endpoint uses SAX doesn't mean a server can't use DOM. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Ed Simon <[email protected]> (613) 726-9645 XMLsec Inc. Interested in XML Security Training and Consulting services? Visit "www.xmlsec.com". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Salz" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "Carl Ellison" <[email protected]>; "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:57 AM Subject: Re: minimal canonicalization > > > If you can constrain your process such that you know no intermediaries are > > introducing particular sorts of changes > > And the endpoint. It would be unfortunate if a UPnP device required all > UPnP servers to be implemented in such a style that a DOM-based approach > wouldn't work. > /r$ > >