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

Re: Use of namespace prefix in XML-Signature

From: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:55:03 +0200
To: Don Park <donpark@docuverse.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-id: <2088323710.1002815703@pinkpanther>
Hi Don,

I think that the problem with the software is implementation specific. The 
Signature spec allows you to create Signatures without prefix. In my 
opinion, it's a philosophical question whether you want to use prefixes or 
not or whether the prefix should be "ds" or "dsig" or "digsig" or "foo"...

The XML Signature spec let you choose.


PS: My library does, too. Simply say:


before you use the library and everything should be fine... Signatures 
without prefix (But now you should take care if you include ds:Objects with 
element content outside Signature space to make something like:::

<Context xmlns="" />

because with prefix, this was not a problem:

<Context />

PPS: If you need infos about the library, simply subscribe to


--On Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2001 04:33 -0700 Don Park 
<donpark@docuverse.com> wrote:

> Problem with Christian's library:
> Charistian's library generates <Signature> elements with "ds" as namespace
> prefix.  Looking it at the source code, there was no apparent way to
> generate <Signature> elements using default namespace.
> Problem with DOM API:
> As of DOM Level 2, there was no implementation independent means to remove
> namespace prefixes from a Document without having to build a new Document
> and duplicating nodes minus the prefixes.  Node.setPrefix() behavior is
> unclear regarding null or empty prefix as parameter.
> I would like to hear from other implementors about this issue.  Does your
> implementation mandate use of namespace prefixes?
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 09:52:52 UTC

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