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

Re: ACTION-31

From: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:19:51 +0200
Message-ID: <46530A17.3000007@ac.upc.edu>
To: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>, XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>

No problem with mentioning that, as long as we  follow what says section 
4.3.3.5 The DigestMethod Element, i.e. if the resulting data object is a 
node-set, then it must be canonicalized before proceeding to compute the 
digest value.

Juan Carlos.

Thomas Roessler escribió:
> 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?
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 15:19:56 GMT

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