[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0 - C14N of values with datatype != xsd:anyType
Lars Marius Garshol
larsga at garshol.priv.no
Sun Jul 30 13:45:41 EDT 2006
* Lars Heuer
> Why does the XTM 2.0 draft mentions only the C14N of XML? Doesn't it
> make sense to point out that other datatypes should be canonicalized
> as well? Why has XML such an outstanding position?
We've gone back and forth a little on this, but at the moment we're
not actually canonicalizing any data type representations for the
sake of duplicate suppression. XML gets special treatment for two
- To ensure that there is a definite string representation of
the embedded XML. Without canonicalization we wouldn't have this,
in most cases the original raw XML markup will not be available to
implementations (parsers usually don't expose it).
- To ensure that all necessary namespace declarations are preserved in
a consistent way.
We could do this without using the XML C14n spec, but when a spec
that does exactly what we want exists it seems silly not to use it.
> It wouldn't make sense to put a list of datatypes into the spec, but a
> hint that other values require c14n makes sense, doesn't it?
At the moment this is not required. In fact, if you are to follow the
spec to the letter you *shouldn't* canonicalize. However, this is one
area where I expect that some implementation experience will
eventually inform the spec. Ie: if in the 5-year review we find that
most implementations actually do the c14n, well, then we know what to
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian http://www.ontopia.net
+47 98 21 55 50 http://www.garshol.priv.no
More information about the sc34wg3