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

Re: Fwd: Re: Last Call: Exclusive Canonical XML

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 23:52:54 -0500
Message-Id: <200111260452.XAA0000006297@torque.pothole.com>
To: dsig <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

You can make arguments either way for each current xml namespace thing
but we really don't want to make things too complex or have too many
options, as you would if inclusivity/exclusivity were independent for
namesapces and xml namespace attributes... It seems cleanest to have
pretty much the two extreme points of inclusion and exclusion
predefined and let people set up what they want via XML composition or
explicit manipulation to deviate from these. Besides which, I don't
think we should change it now without a strong reason.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Reply-To:  reagle@w3.org
Organization:  W3C
To:  dsig <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Date:  Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:56:32 -0500
Message-Id:  <20011121145632.B4C8EFF8@policy.w3.org>

>The fact that ancestor xml:base declarations would be absent from a 
>serialized subset seems to be a cause for surprise. However, I believe this 
>is the intent of exclusive canonicalization unless we wanted to make 
>exceptions for certain types of xml:foo -- which I would not support. It's 
>an interesting concern though and I don't recall myself thinking about it 
>too much beyond xml:lang .
>
>----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
>Subject: Re: Last Call: Exclusive Canonical XML
>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:53:15 -0500
>From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
>To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
>Cc: chairs@w3.org
>
>On Tuesday 20 November 2001 15:36, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> The DOM Level 3 Load and Save draft is using the Canonical XML spec
>> in order to serialize a DOM node (see the feature "format-canonical"
>> in the DOMWriter interface [1]). We should probably consider doing
>> the same for this new canonical format.
>> So expect comments from the DOM WG to determine if Exclude Canonical
>> XML is in our radar and if yes, if we're happy with it.
>
>Thank you, we'd certainly appreciate DOM's feedback!
>
>> As a Last Call comment, section 3 explicitly excludes xml:base from the
>> context (by excluding the xml namespace), this affects the interpretation
>> of relative URIs in the subdocument...
>
>This is true. xml:* declarations need to occur within the utilized (in the
>XPATH selection) nodes if they are to be serialized.
>
>
>--
>
>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/
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>-- 
>
>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 Sunday, 25 November 2001 23:55:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:14 GMT