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

Re: RetrievalMethod

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:05:30 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 14:49 1/30/2001 +0900, TAMURA Kent wrote:
>Ok, I have understood the resultant octet stream represents a
>FooData element.
>Must the result strictly match to the `element' production?
>In my opinion, the result should match to the `document',
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#NT-document, because we can reuse
>normal parsing method of existing XML parser.

Given the productions:
   [1]  document ::= prolog element Misc*
   [39] element  ::= EmptyElemTag | STag content ETag

The difference between the document and element is that a document might 
have Misc, and it will have a prolog (but the prolog itself has optional 
symbols), so how different is the processing? Actually, my original 
statement was wrong, the referent of the RetrievalMethod will be a document 
*or* element, and the reason I conclude this is the same as for Reference: 
one might have an XPath expression that identifies a node (where I identify 
a particular key structure in another XML document) that then must be 
serialized; or it might be a URI without a fragment that identifies a 
document. (Though we recommend against fragments in Reference URIs, and 
encourage them to be placed in Transforms in section

Now, I'm just reading the spec to the best of my ability, I'm not 
necessarily arguing for what I conclude, so if you think it should be 
something else, please say so!

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, 30 January 2001 09:05:39 UTC

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