W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Transformations

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:37:57 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991013153757.00a1a4e0@localhost>
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 11:25 99/10/08 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
 >a) Section 4.3.1 Location does not say whether it will allow fragment Ids
 >after the the URI.  It would probably make a better data model if we did
all
 >partial document work in the transformations (and this could be treated as
a
 >special transformation that is required as opposed to recommended).

I think I agree with this. In the HTML context that which comes after a URI
is merely a "view" on the whole document, and thinking that way in our
context can be dangerous; I like transformations. But I also understand
Don's point that we still need to refer to objects elsewhere in the
document. However, I think this can be satisfied by saying the location must
be a URI-clean or IDREF [1].

This seems like an abitrary restriction though, and if someone puts and XPtr
in their URI and also specify a XSLT, we need to define what happens, or say
that the signature engine will throw an error.

[1] http://www.xml.com/axml/notes/FindingIDs.html


_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 1999 15:59:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:08 GMT