W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Strawman proposal for modified Transform processing for Streamability

From: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:33:11 -0400
To: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec@w3.org
Message-id: <48BFF1A7.3060902@sun.com>

Pratik Datta wrote:

> I understand the concern of streaming XPath parsers, but the XPath 
> subset that I am defining is simple enough, that an implementor can 
> define streaming XPath engine at least with less complexity than a 
> canonicalization engine. Also we are not preventing people from using a 
> regular DOM based XPath engine, which is very readily available.

Yes, but that is contradictory to what we are trying to achieve. I think 
if we want to create a successful streaming profile, we should make sure 
that it is something that can be realistically implemented. I don't want 
XPath to be the C14N of the streaming profile. It seems to me that the 
onus will be on XML Signature implementors to create a streaming XPath 
implementation. If that's the case, I think we need to prove that this 
is not a really difficult task.

> By the way, what is the NodeSelection transform ?

It doesn't exist, it was just an example of a node selection Transform 
that would be streaming-friendly and not necessarily tied to XPath 
(perhaps one could use XPath as the implementation though). I admit I 
haven't really given this much thought and it may be the case that 
anything we come up with on our own would be similar enough to XPath 
expressions that it wouldn't make much sense.

--Sean
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 14:34:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:54 GMT