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

RE: DSig comments on XML Base

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:20:26 -0700
Message-ID: <116DFD732FA92E4D9B647C8EEF6DAF1015E2C6@red-pt-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'John Boyer'" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Boyer [mailto:jboyer@PureEdge.com]
> OK, that makes some sense.  What you're saying is that we 
> should have c14n
> extend the Xpath data model by adding an xml:base to the top 
> level element
> of external entities.
> This must be done by modifying the XML processor that generates the
> node-set.  

You will have a choice to make.  Either you deviate from the XPath data
model by adding an attribute that XPath doesn't provide (some Xpath queries
might produce different results), or you deviate from the XPath data model
by extending the data model with a base URI property like XSLT and the
infoset do, and add the xml:base attribute only when serializing.  I like
the latter approach better, it's similar to namespace declarations and the
consistency with other specs might make it easier to support on processors
that are XSLT- or infoset-based.

> I wonder how easy this is for implementers.
> I agree with you that trying to read between the lines on XML 
> 1.0 is a waste
> of time, but I disagree with the implication that this is 
> what I'm doing.

OK, sorry, I thought that you and Paul were about to disappear in a very
deep rat hole.  In any case, this is a Core WG issue, the Linking group is
mostly trying to follow their interpretation.

> There are quite specific lines that tell an XML processor 
> developer that
> they need not distinguish between content derived within the 
> document versus
> content derived externally.
> So, TAMURA Kent, Kevin Regan and others: could you please let 
> us know if you
> can do this?  If so, then I'd like to do what you suggest 
> Jonathan, then
> place a note about the residual problem with base URI for 
> top-level PIs.

Is a note sufficient or does it just postpone the issue?
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 17:21:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:34 UTC