In this example each "for-each" loops over all the elements and
attributes in the document (including all children, grandchildren,
great grand children etc). So if there are a 100 such elements and
attributes, and we nest it three times, then element "</foo>"
will be emitted 100*100*100 times
Hi Sean, Yes, we can link this to DSS ... we had experienced and discussed the issues there as well ... http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200504/msg00048.html Konrad Sean Mullan schrieb:I think it might be useful to have a best practice on signing "legacy XML", or XML without namespace information. If you create an enveloping signature over XML without namespace information, it may inherit the XML Signature namespace of the Object element, which is not the intended behavior. There are two potential workarounds that I have been advising users to workaround this : 1) Insert an xmlns="" namespace definition in the legacy XML. However, this is not always practical. 2) Insulate it from the XML Signature namespace by defining a namespace prefix on the XML Signature (ex: "ds"). I would be curious as to whether others have had similar issues and what solution they recommend. The 2nd point above is probably a good practice in general. Also, a nit on the best practices doc: - section 2.1 typo: s/expecially/especially --Sean Frederick Hirsch wrote:What I propose we do as a WG to progress the Best Practices draft is the following: 1. WG members please review the current Editors Draft , which reflects some suggestions on the last teleconference. 2. WG members propose text to be added or changed in the current Editors draft , by sending an email to the public WG mail list (please include [BestPractices] in email Subject line) 3. WG discuss and agree to changes. What I would like to accomplish on our next call is to get to a baseline draft that the WG agrees reflects WG consensus. To do this WG members must review the current draft, make concrete proposals for changes and additions on the email list in advance of the meeting, agree as a WG to those changes and then review and agree that a subsequent draft reflects those changes. Please indicate any suggestions or concerns with this process to the public list, please review the draft, and please send proposals to the list in advance of 6 May. If there is any WG member who wishes to join as an editor please let Thomas and myself know so we can discuss. Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Chair, OASIS Strategy Committee  http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-bestpractices/