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

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

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:08:52 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ECB22DC7-4019-40AF-B8AE-E57BE8F77D29@nokia.com>
To: "edsimon@xmlsec.com" <edsimon@xmlsec.com>

Is it possible for you to take an action to make a concrete proposal  
either for C14N11 errata and/or propose text for Canonicalization 2.0?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG

On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:22 PM, ext Ed Simon wrote:

> 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.
> Ed
> 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 Friday, 18 September 2009 16:09:42 UTC

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