> There are several reasonable starting points for defining what parts of
> an XML document are information-bearing: two that agree reasonably
> closely (though not 100%) are the XML canonicalization spec and the XDM
> data model.
Note that QName's in content meant that another XML c14n method had to be
defined, one where "unused" namespaces are stripped, unless specifically
directed to be included.
> one might
> imagine a stronger form of canonicalization that, for example, moves all
> namespace declarations to the outermost element, changes the prefixes,
> and deletes namespace declarations that are not used in any element or
> attribute names. You might take the view that people should write their
> applications in such a way that they continue to work after such a
> change; and others might legitimately take a different view. This is in
> the realm of "best practice", where no two people will agree.
This would mean that nobody could take a signed document and embed it in
another one, such as SOAP. A use case I kinda care about :)
/r$
--
STSM, WebSphere Appliance Architect
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/soma/
