OpenSAML user discussion

[Kenny Pearce <>]

"no such thing as ignorable whitespace" - even with exclusive
canonicalization? The point of canonicalization is that it is supposed
to render functionally identical XML physically identical. So, for
instance,

"<Elem1><Elem2/></Elem1>"

should be identical to:

"<Elem1>
<Elem2/>
</Elem1>"

Right? That's what I'm talking about. I thought that this was precisely
the purpose of canonicalization.

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 13:05 -0500, Scott Cantor wrote:
> >     I'm trying to validate a signature using the
> > ExplicitKeySignatureTrustEngine and the KeyStoreCredential resolver and
> > it isn't working. Does ignorable white space (e.g. between XML elements)
> > matter with exclusive canonicalization?
> 
> There's no such thing as ignorable whitespace with signatures.
> 
> >     I've also, just in general, had difficulty finding much
> documentation
> > on how to do this stuff. I'm looking at the javadocs and I've seen the
> > wiki, but the wiki says it hasn't been updated for the latest library
> > versions.
> 
> Welcome to open source.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
>