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

RE: XSL WG comments on XML Signatures

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:31:40 -0800
To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFEDKCINEPLBDLODCODKGEPCCBAA.jboyer@PureEdge.com>
From James Clark:

What's twisted and bizarre is using an extension function to get an
initial handle on the source document, instead of using the mechanism
that is built into XPath namely the context node.  This will make XPath
expressions used in your application confusingly different from XPath
expressions used everywhere.

<John>
Where the node-set comes from did not and still does not seem confusing to
me, but it seems to be such a thorn, so obviously parse will be thrown out
(see below).

Further, you still didn't answer the question of what I see as an oversight
in the XPath specification.  You must be able to use empty node-sets by your
own specification, so what should the context node, size and position be for
an empty node-set?
</John>

Because you're not using the language in the way it is designed, there
are likely to be subtle traps.  For example, you will lose the ability
to use the id() function (because functions are not allowed as the right
hand operand of /).
It's also going to be very awkward.  Instead of something like

  e1|e2|e3|e4

you will have to write

parse($input,true())/e1|parse($input,true())/e2|parse($input,true())/e3|pars
e($input,true())/e4

<John>
Parsing 4 times in this case is simply not necessary:

parse($input,true())/descendant-or-self::node()[id("e1")|id("e2")|id("e3")|i
d("e4")]

However, it really doesn't matter to me if the spec were modified slightly
to eliminate parse() and instead pass the information in a context node-set
as you recommend.  But while I have the attention of an authority on the
issue, perhaps you could answer a few other questions.

Firstly, would it be fair to assume that any XPath implementation will have
at least two points of entry:  eval() and parse()?  If the XPath transform
must provide the input to the XPath engine as a context node-set, then
presumably the node-set must be something that is understandable by the
XPath engine.  Hence, the XPath engine must provide the parse() in order to
allow it to build a node-set data structure that it will understand when
eval() is called.  In fact, I would not be surprised to see entry points for
construct variable bindings, construct namespace bindings, and construct
initial context, since all of these are data structures that the Xpath
engine's eval function will need.

Secondly, could you suggest whether we should restrict the transform input
to be a well-formed XML document?  The transform input is defined by the WG
(not by me) to be a string of data resulting either from the previous
transform or from URI dereference.  So, *something* must be used to convert
to a node-set.  Currently, I would be using your parser, and I would prefer
not to have to use pieces of your parser to read something which is not a
complete, well-formed XML document.  Is this reasonable?

Finally, since you only discussed problems with parse, I assume you have no
objection to the serialize() function.  This is actually the main function
that we need, as expressed previously in DSig WG face-to-face meetings.  The
transform output MUST be a string, which may be given to a digest algorithm
or as input to a subsequent transform.  The result of an XPath expression
may not be a string.  If it is a boolean or number, we can simply call
string on it implicitly, but if the result is a node-set, then we need to
regenerate the actual XML markup for that node-set based on document order
(and lex order only for the attribute and namespace axes).  Making this into
a function that returns a string, and adding that to the function library
seems to be the XPath specification's recommended way of extending XPath in
a particular application.  Is this reasonable?

Thanks,
John Boyer
Software Development Manager
PureEdge Solutions, Inc. (formerly UWI.Com)
jboyer@PureEdge.com

</John>
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2000 14:29:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:09 GMT