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

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

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:53:36 -0400
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010914185336.D1CDA87626@policy.w3.org>

I've proposed a XML 1.0 validation transform for consideration.
  http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-XMLValidation
  $Revision: 1.124 $ on $Date: 2001/09/14 18:50:30 $ 

If people find this acceptable, I will then make it clear that the default 
processing is well-formed.

(Also, I ask two questions: which URI should we use for the algorithm, and 
do we need to distinguish in schema between strict and laxly valid?)


On Tuesday 11 September 2001 08:09, merlin wrote:
> 2. Implicit parsing of octet resources
>
> When the input to a transform is an octet stream and the transform
> requires a node set (e.g., canonicalization) the dsig spec states that
> the octet stream should be parsed. Further, it states that it should
> not be schema-validated. However, it does not state whether or not
> it should be DTD-validated. This appears ambiguous.
>
> Options:
>
> a) Leave it implementation-specific.
>
> b) Specify that validated parsing is mandatory.
>
> c) Specify that well-formed parsing is mandatory. Specify a new
>    transform for DTD validation, just as we have one for schema
>    validation. Aside: Internal DTD subsets are always applied, even in
>    well-formed parsing mode.
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 14:54:43 UTC

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