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

Re: Comments for Transform

From: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:09:13 +0900
Message-Id: <199912070209.LAA38542@ns.trl.ibm.com>
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
CC: "Dave Solo" <dsolo@alum.mit.edu>

I think a node-set MUST be well-formed.

In message "RE: Comments for Transform"
    on 99/12/06, "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com> writes:
> Further, you will notice in the recommendation immediately below those five
> steps that we RECOMMEND that the output should be well-formed.  The intent
> of that statement is that we recognize that it is possible for a node-set to
> be a forest rather than a tree, and we recommend against that (although core
> behavior will be to generate precisely what is specified by the XPath and
> the five processing steps given).

Yes, the draft RECOMMENDs that a node-set is well-formed.  So,
you must define canonical form of a non well-formed node-set
more strictly.  Note that a node-set is an unordered collection
of nodes (not only elements).  The order of nodes depends on
XPath implementations.  The draft does not explain how to print
attribute nodes not in elements.

TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
Received on Monday, 6 December 1999 21:09:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:32 UTC