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

Re: Action-539: review C14N2.0

From: Karel Wouters <karel.wouters@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:34:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4BCDC98B.6070903@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
two questions regarding the trimTextNode:

1) when an XML signature is embedded in a XML document that includes
xml:space=preserve in the root element, will that break the signature if
trimTextNode=true, supposing some trimming was performed?
If so, is this desirable behaviour?

2) Why was this feature - trimTextNode - introduced in the first place?
If a party, producing XML, includes some whitespace in a textnode,
should C14N just discard it, because it decides that this whitespace
must be meaningless? Maybe it's valuable to just post the argumentation
for it to this mailinglist, for the record. (or maybe add it in the

just my 2 cents,


On 19/04/2010 18:51, Meiko Jensen wrote:
> 2.3 "Text Nodes": does the "trim" also apply to ignorable whitespaces
> (e.g. in between "<A>   <B/>")? If yes, the canonicalized XML will be a
> whole document in a single line (besides newlines in between
> non-whitespace characters). No objections against this, but I see a
> source of misunderstanding here. Maybe we should make this explicit.
> Besides: what is the use for trim in the other case? Is it really needed
> for "<A>  this is text  </A>"? Do we have to differentiate two distinct
> types here, one trimming *all* nodes, one only removing pure-whitespace
> text nodes?
> 2.3 "Text Nodes": s/xml:space=preserve/xml:space="preserve"/
> s/declaration is in context/declaration in context/
> s/into one/into one./
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 15:40:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:13 UTC