W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Poll on Exclusive Canonicalization

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:03:11 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010619175522.03029258@localhost>
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
Cc: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@pureedge.com>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
If the prefix is overloaded, how would you determine which namespace to use?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ns1:foo xmlns:ns1='oneThing'>
   <ns1:bar xmlns:ns1='theOther'>
     <ns1:baz>Frobnostication</ns1:baz>
   </ns1:bar>
</ns1:foo>

Using the closest might not be approriate given what's being ported ... I 
suspect to go this Include/Exclude route, you need to give the 
(prefix,namespace) pair.


At 14:46 6/18/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>Do you have any suggestions here? Would an IncludeNS element content
>of exclusive canonicalization algorithm elements which had an
>attribute whose values was a list fo prefixs (NMTOKENS) that would be
>considered used, even though their prefix did not appear to be used,
>do the trick?  So you might have
>   <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#excludeC14N">
>     <IncludeNS Prefixes="foo bar etc"/>
>   </Transform>



--
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 18:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:35 UTC