[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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$
|
