The lack of opacity has also emerged on other threads (e.g. [1]). I think we need to accept that refps are anything but opaque in any real sense of the word. Marc. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/684C1D92-3CB9-11D9-B7E8-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM On Dec 21, 2004, at 7:15 PM, Rich Salz wrote: > > Dims posted a message ("just thinking out loud here...") that included > a > snippet of an EPR with a DSIG in it. It just brought to mind an issue. > > One of XML's validity constraints is that attributes of type ID have > unique values. In order to not generate invalid XML, a program that > uses > the refp's from an EPR must scan them to make sure that the ID > attributes > that *it* generates are unique. This violates opacity, but without > that > violation a client cannot be sure of generating valid messages. > > Further, while xml:id is useful, there are still many ID attributes in > other namespaces. This requires even deeper knowledge and inspection > by the EPR recipient, further ripping away opacity. It's a hard > problem, > of course, since there is no guarantee that the EPR recipient will even > *know* what the ID attributes are inside a refp. > > Short of probabilistic values for ID attributes (viz., MIME separators > for > multipart), opacity must be broken. > /r$ > -- > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html > XML Security Overview > http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html > > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 21:18:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT