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

RE: ISSUE-201: C14N 2.0 handling of DTD-related and Schema-related behaviors

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:24:52 -0400
To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <016801caf5cc$b7309b70$2591d250$@osu.edu>
> We should discuss this on the call tomorrow, thanks for the excellent
> outline of issues.

I have to miss the call due to a local obligation, but feel free to discuss
in my absence.

> Would it make sense to explicitly tell c14n2 the type of schema used (DTD,
> XSD, RNG etc) as an input, or which schema validation, if any, has already
> been performed on the input?

The challenge, I think, is trying to enumerate in concise fashion what
exactly was done. Simply validating doesn't necessarily imply that certain
things happened. But it might be possible.

I think there hasn't really been a systematic attempt to try and come up
with a markup to describe "how a document was parsed" in terms of all the
options that exist.

> It seems there are too many implicit assumptions/cases possible.

I don't entirely disagree, but a lot of those implicit things have nothing
to do with schemas at all. Parsers have a huge number of weird options that
are outside the XML specs and can influence the DOM you get (and thus what
you pass into or get out of c14n).

-- Scott
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 14:25:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 May 2010 14:25:28 GMT