- From: Lauren Wood <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:43:51 -0700
- To: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- CC: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
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> This sounds reasonable. This would also be a flag to various applications to be careful what they do with the DSig SignedInfo element. thanks, Lauren
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 15:45:08 UTC