- From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 11:49:20 -0700
- To: "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Hi, Has anyone had a chance to look further into my prior email about speed testing the new filter. I remain concerned that the new method remains too slow. I agree that it 'rules' from a flexibility standpoint, but correctness of the result is not the only software requirement that exists. Thanks, John Boyer -----Original Message----- From: Christian Geuer-Pollmann [mailto:geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 11:35 AM To: John Boyer Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Subject: RE: here() context and comment nodes --On Dienstag, 7. Mai 2002 10:37 -0700 John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com> wrote: > The expectation of comment infestation in the XPath element content was > the biggest reason why we defined here() to return the element node > parent when it didn't appear in an attribute. Here's the one that > originally shook my boots, so to speak: > > he<!-- Yikes -->re()/blah/blah/blah > > This is legal XML, so it has to be supported. In general, take the > 'string' corresponding to the Xpath element content, which concatenates > all text nodes descendants. Hi John, OK, that's what I do. Interesting that the above is legal. Maybe we should include such an obfuscation into our interops ;-) Thanks, Christian
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 14:49:51 UTC