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

Re: Question for Implementors (Was: Schema Validation Transform)

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:45:03 +0100
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010906174504.F060244FD0@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>
And a test with an explicit inline schema. Untested, etc.

WRT the PR review comment, it seems inconsistent that we say
*don't* schema validate, but *maybe* DTD validate. I know
that this has been a question from at least one customer, so
some clarification might be in order. I'd vote for *don't*
validate against an external DTD either. We've nailed down
implicit serialization (c14n); implicit parsing might be
good too.


>We can call it optional if we can get interop on an example of this as an 
>explicit transform. Anyone want to send an example to the list?

Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 13:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:36 UTC