XML Canonicalisation #175

Activity

1. snoyberg commented on Feb 27, 2022

   

   snoyberg

   on Feb 27, 2022

   Owner

   More actions

   I'd defer to @k0ral on whether this should be added. But I'm curious: what does canonicalized mean here? What's the difference from what is currently rendered?
2. ljdarj commented on Mar 3, 2022

   

   ljdarj

   on Mar 3, 2022

   Author

   More actions

   That's the canonicalisation from here, which in short defines a standard order for attributes, requires that CDATA sections be replaced by their textual content and a few other things.

   But thinking of it, a separate function — and not necessarily in xml-conduit at that — would probably be a better fit rather than piggy-backing on renderText & co: canonicalisation can fail contrary to renderText & co.
3. k0ral commented on Mar 4, 2022

   

   k0ral

   on Mar 4, 2022

   Last edited by k0ral

   Collaborator

   More actions

   I've skimmed through the "Canonical XML" specification, and I have the feeling this could fit nicely in xml-conduit, for example as an alternate implementation of the tokenToBuilder function.

   The fact that canonicalisation can fail doesn't strike me as a blocker -- the signatures of the new functions just need to convey that possibility.

   Just my 2 cents though, I might not realize that this is harder than it looks.