xml-dev - RE: [xml-dev] Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong

RE: [xml-dev] Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
From: "Paul Sumner Downey" <Paul.Downey@whatfettle.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:24:25 -0000
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <5442CD5A-764A-11D8-BF21-000A95A51C9E@textuality.com>

Heh, and given canonicalisation is one of the simplest components of
encrypting and signing XML, when can we expect to have *interoperable* WSS
(WS-Security) implementations ?

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Sent: 15 March 2004 06:31
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org DEV
Subject: [xml-dev] Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong


Canonicalizing XML is hard!  -Tim

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [xml-dev] Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
  - From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>

References:
- Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
  - From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>

Prev by Date: EditiX XML / XSLT Editor v1.2
Next by Date: Impact of the usage of unique identifier as URN into XML documents
Previous by thread: Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
Next by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread