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

Re: ACTION-502: Propose new model for RetrievalMethod in 2.0

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:50:05 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, ext Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1A1A909-11B6-4A76-BCD3-BDB3BE8BDDA3@w3.org>
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:30 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:

>> KeyInfoReference uses the same syntax and dereferencing behavior as
>> Reference's URI in "Compatibility Mode" (section 6.4.3.2) and the
>> "Compatibility Mode" Reference Processing Model (section 6.4.3.3) except
>> that there are no child elements, the presence of the URI attribute is
>> mandatory, and URI values MUST be either an absolute URI or a same-document
>> reference consisting of a hash sign ('#') followed by a fragment. Neither an
>> empty URI nor the "shortname XPointer" syntax are permitted.

I might be dense right now -- but why do you rule out:

- relative URI references?  (../../foo/bar/)
- shorthand XPointers? (#foo)
- empty URI references? (the current document)

It looks like we're tearing open URI reference syntax quite heavily here, and I'd like to understand better what the reasons are.
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 10:50:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 February 2010 10:50:11 GMT