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

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

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:49:44 -0500
To: "'Thomas Roessler'" <tlr@w3.org>, "'Frederick Hirsch'" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <06aa01caa997$1ec037f0$5c40a7d0$@2@osu.edu>
Thomas Roessler wrote on 2010-02-09:
> I might be dense right now -- but why do you rule out:
> - relative URI references?  (../../foo/bar/)

For some reason I didn't think these were supported in Reference (nor do
they generally make any sense in most signature applications I'm involved
with) but I had no particular reason for that.

> - shorthand XPointers? (#foo)

The only difference between them and the regular fragment syntax is the
handling of comments, which is irrelevant for the purposes of this use case.
A typical implementation here won't be doing anything with node sets or
following any of the "usual" rules for fragments anyway.

> - empty URI references? (the current document)

That would be a circular reference in which you had a KeyInfoReference as a
child of the KeyInfo it pointed to.

-- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 14:50:21 UTC

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