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

Re: comments on the XML Canonical specification

From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:43:46 +0200
Message-ID: <39BD27E2.DC9DAAC8@dyomedea.com>
To: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
CC: Lauren Wood <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Hi,

XML Schema could also be added to the list of applications which would
be harmed by namespace rewriting.

In this snippet for instance :

<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
	xmlns:lib="http://xmlfr.org/ns/library"
.../...
	>
.../...
	<xsd:complexType name="characterType" content="elementOnly">
		<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:string"/>
		<xsd:element name="since" type="xsd:string"/>
		<xsd:element name="qualification" type="lib:qualificationType"/>
	</xsd:complexType>

"lib:qualificationType" means the type "qualificationType" defined for
namespace prefixed by "lib" and "xsd:string" means the type "string"
defined for namespace prefixed by "xsd".

Which means that "lib:" is syntaxic sugar but if you change it, you need
to change it in the type attributes as well.

Hope this helps.

Eric


John Boyer wrote:
> 
> Hi Lauren,
> 
> <lauren>
> It is harmful to some documents and specifications, but not all
> documents and applications. This doesn't mean that those applications
> that do not need such a dependency are wrong, which is what the current
> language implies. I don't want DOM applications that do treat the prefix
> as syntactic sugar (since those authors read the Namespaces Rec and
> implemented it, without regard to XPath etc) to be labelled as being
> wrong. So my suggestion, again, is to come up with some language that is
> neutral on this point.
> </lauren>
> 
> <john>Fair enough.  I can change the language further to a kind of 'There
> exist documents which are dependent...'.
> However, note that since there exist XSLT and XPath transforms in DSig's
> SignedInfo element, the DSig SignedInfo element is among those documents
> that would be harmed by namespace rewriting.
> </john>
> 
> > 2) relative to absolute URIs
> >
> > I will be *very* happy to see this as an erratum, but I cannot remove the
> > statement from c14n until that erratum is published. I am hoping this
> occurs
> > before C14N goes to candidate rec.
> 
> That is probably something you should pass on to the XSL WG.
> 
> <john>Will do.</john>
> 
> Lauren

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 14:43:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:11 GMT