W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > May 2007

Re: ACTION-31

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:58:47 +0200
To: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>
Cc: XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070522145847.GY23223@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-05-22 16:44:03 +0200, Juan Carlos Cruellas wrote:
> From: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>
> To: XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:44:03 +0200
> Subject: ACTION-31
> List-Id: <public-xmlsec-maintwg.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/465301B3.7010809@ac.upc.edu
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
>
> Dear all,
>
> Below follows my proposal for first paragraph in section 3.1.1 of XML Sig:
>
> "The Reference Processing Model (section 4.3.3.2) requires that validators 
> use Canonical XML 1.0 [XML-C14N]
> when a transformation is expecting an octet-stream and the data object 
> resulting from the URI dereferencing or
> from the previous transformation in the list of Transform elements, is a 
> node-set."

Fine with me.

Looking at this, I also wonder if we need to also explicitly mention
the fact that C14N might be invoked if the final transform results
in an node-set.

Thoughts?

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 14:58:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:59 GMT