W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > September 2009

RE: Clarifying XPath Filtering Transform text (pertains to Action-350, etc.)

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:22:57 -0400
To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Cc: 'XMLSec WG Public List' <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1252956177.3238.67.camel@XMLSEC-BIZ.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Yes, the clarifications would pertain to the c14n spec. I'm not saying
the spec is misleading, I am saying it is not clear and it needs to be
explicit as to what happens in cases like what I've suggested where the
node set result is not just one or more element nodes or nodes that are
valid root children of an XML document.


On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 10:23 -0400, Scott Cantor wrote:
> Ed Simon wrote on 2009-09-09:
> > I believe we still need to clarify what happens, or should happen,
> > with the following results (adapted from my linked post mentioned
> > above) from the XPath Filter 2 Transform:
> > 
> > For example, what is the prescribed
> > treatment of the following examples of node sets returned by an XPath
> > Filter 2 Transform in order to produce a hashable octet stream?:
> > 
> > * a node set containing an attribute node;
> > 
> > * a node set containing a text node; and
> > 
> > * a node set containing all the above plus an element node.
> These clarifications would pertain to the c14n specs, right? I believe the signature spec says that you always use an implicit c14n transform if the output is a node set and the next step requires an octet stream, so the text you're looking for would be a clarification to the c14n specs.
> Since they currently are written with respect to taking a "node set" as input, what's the misleading aspect you're trying to clarify?
> -- Scott
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 19:23:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:12 UTC