RE: [uddi-spec] Change request for handling of keys in V3

I read the document and I would like to better understand why the proposed solution does not face the same difficulties mentioned in SCC14N, Section 5.4, in relation to the canonicalization of anyURI (difficulties that convinced SCC14N to give up on the idea of canonicalizing anyURI). Here is what the SCC14N spec says:

"... it is reasonable to ask whether a canonical lexical representation for data of type anyURI should be specified. This, however, is a difficult if not insurmountable task. Many of the details of an appropriate canonicalization (such as case-mapping or case-folding) are inherently scheme-specific, and it is intrinsically impossible for any one Schema Centric Canonicalization implementation to understand the universe of possible URI schemes it might encounter (and so canonicalize them all appropriately). Even for some commonly known URI schemes, the relevant specifications lack crisp clarity on some germane issues. And the algorithm of §5.2 of RFC2396 can (see ibid, §5.1) only be carried out in the context of a specific base URI; as generally speaking such relevant base URI may be application-level notions not represented in XML, the algorithm of §5.2 must remain out of scope so far as XML canonicalization is concerned."

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Hately [mailto:hately@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:51 AM
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] Change request for handling of keys in V3

uddi-spec message