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

RE: ACTION-581: proposal around IDness of attributes

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:40:19 -0400
To: "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <032601cb486a$6a1ab6e0$3e5024a0$@osu.edu>
> I had intended our XPath streaming profile to be reusable, so that other
> specifications can also use it. E.g. we were planning for this to be
shared
> with WS-Transfer.

Ok, but are we allowing id() in our use of the subset or not?

> So it shouldn't have any dependencies on XML signature. I.e. XML signature
> 2.0 should depend on XPath profile for XML signature, but not the other
way
> around.
> 
> That is why think dsig2:IDAttributes should not be used by the XPath.

I don't think that follows. Isn't the assertion syntax specific to XML
Signature anyway? Why would anybody expect that use of the IDAttributes
element would apply to other uses of that subset?

> This is what we are publishing for tomorrow
> * XPath profile includes the id() function, but says that IDs are only
> defined by DTDs.

That's really a mistake anyway (in just the context of your subset draft),
because that's not what people do/expect in practice. It even excludes
xml:id for example.

> * XML signature 2.0 goes with option 1 - i.e the dsig2:IDAttributes should
> only have only one ID attribute definition - the one used by the reference
> 
> But we can change it after further discussion.

Yes, I think we should discuss. I may not have explained this well enough.

-- Scott
Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 17:40:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 August 2010 17:40:54 GMT