[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Minutes minutes SSTC/SAML concall Tue 21-Oct-2008
> Scott: What's the reason that you're told it's left open in XML-DSIG? Because other encodings are legal and presumably if they exist, people have a reason to use them. Exactly the same as with XML. Everybody pretty much uses UTF-8 most of the time for protocol usage, but people do use other encodings. The question is whether implementations can handle others or not. I don't think mine would because I had to brute force an awful lot of certificate handling in C/C++. But I got the impression the WG felt that most people's implementations would handle other encodings, so I assumed mine was an outlier. > In general, though, this is a potential interop problem that we should try > to solve, IMO. I guess we don't want to do something like extending the > ds:X509Certificate element to add an Encoding attribute? We can't, at least not without a new schema. I believe an Encoding attribute was discussed as a possible future addition to whatever the eventual output of the W3C WG is. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]