W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > April 2010

RE: Sorting of DOM input to c14n 2.0

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:48:32 -0400
To: "'Meiko Jensen'" <Meiko.Jensen@rub.de>, "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009d01cadb39$ea7deb20$bf79c160$@2@osu.edu>
> However, I'd wonder why an XPath evaluator should permute the document
> order in such settings. => Do we need to explain this in the spec?

I think it's worth noting, myself, but I also think it's not out of the
realm of possibility to specify the sort and "no subsets contained in other
subsets" assumptions on the signing side (the "caller") vs. the c14n side
(the "callee").

That enables a simpler subsystem for c14n, and the opportunity to avoid work
when the calling code knows it's not required or has prior knowledge of the
order.

But I realize that the common case for not having to worry about it is when
n=1, in which case it makes no difference.

Just a thought.

-- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 18:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 April 2010 18:49:09 GMT