W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

[XPath Filter 2.0] Comments on current draft

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@cio.gv.at>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 14:42:03 +0200
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, "Merlin Hughs" <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr. \(Joseph M. Reagle Jr.\)'" <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "'XMLSigWG'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <028901c204b2$bd090550$1a05a8c0@iaik.at>
Hi all,

I implemented the current XPath Filter 2.0 spec [1] and came
acrosse the following foggily passage at the beginning of
section 3.3:

  The input required by this transform is an XPath node-set
  over the input document. If the input document is an octet
  stream, then the application MUST convert the octet stream
  to an XPath node-set that contains all of the document
  nodes (including comment nodes). The XPath evaluation 
  context for the node-set will be:

(1) I think there a fuzzy use of the term "input document":
    In the first sentence it identifies the underlying document
    of the input node set (as defined in section 2, so I think
    this is the correct use). In the second sentence it 
    identifies the input data of the transform; I suggest to 
    use the term "input" instead.

(2) The conversion form an octet stream to a XPath node-set 
    should be given more precise: I suggest to use the same
    sentence as can be found in section 4.3.3.2 of XMLDISG [2]:
      "... MUST attempt to parse the octets yielding the
       required node-set via [XML] well-formed processing." 

Regards, Gregor

---
[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-filter2/Overview.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core


Received on Sunday, 26 May 2002 08:43:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT