W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: XML Signature use of Canonical XML

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:13:09 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
Cc: "'w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 00/04/10 10:33 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote:

>                         *               *               *
>The reason that I'd like to avoid QNames in attribute values is that it 
>raises a number of questions whose answers our group has no charter to decide.

You have a very good point here.

>It's pretty clear that the Namespace spec (non-normative Section A.2, 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#ns-breakdown) suggests the following 
>"partitions" of a namespace (syntax made up by me):
>   {NS}GI                (element name unique throughout the NS)
>   {NS}att               (attribute name unique throughout the NS)
>   {NS}{GI}att           (attribute name unique for a certain GI)
>The use of QNames in attribute values in the XML Schema and XSLT specs is 
>confined (mostly? or all?) to references to these sorts of names.  They 
>would still have canonicalization problems because their prefixes wouldn't 
>get normalized, but at least they're not inventing new partitions in these 

Mostly, for XSLT. As an exception, please see <decimal-format>
at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#format-number. The i18n WG/IG
objected to this use of qnames, without much success.
I guess I would know better now how to argue this case.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 03:50:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:33 UTC