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

Syntax for C14N2.0 profiles

From: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54e58308-dd2b-4682-9a45-5acd139f941e@default>
To: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
The proposed syntax for C14N2.0 parameters is using subelements inside the CanonicalizationMethod e.g. something like this:

<ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2010/xml-c14n2">
  <c14n2:ExclusiveMode>true</c14n2:ExclusiveMode>
  <c14n2:IgnoreComments>true</c14n2:IgnoreComments>  
  <c14n2:InclusiveNamespacePrefixList>ds wss</c14n2:InclusiveNamespacePrefixList>  
</ds:CanonicalizationMethod>

Any parameters not specified take on the default value.


Now I am wondering how the "profiles"/"named-parameter-sets" fit in.  Should we actually define a separate URI for each profile and figure out a syntax for them? I.e. a profile would be a shortcut syntax for parameters. E.g
<ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2010/xml-c14n2">
  <c14n2:Profile>http://www.w3.org/2010/xml-c14n2/minimal-canonicalization<c14n2:Profile>
</ds:CanonicalizationMethod>


Or should we just define profiles as a combination of parameters that need to be supported by implementation, but there would be no indication in the syntax that a particular profile is being used.

I prefer the later. The problem with the first approach is that profiles also need parameters - i.e. a 
exclusive-canonical-xml-1.0-nocomments" would need the InclusiveNamespacePrefixList as parameters. This would get very confusing.


Pratik
Received on Monday, 28 June 2010 19:13:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 June 2010 19:13:19 GMT