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

Re: Y4 Exclusive C145n interop; was Re: c14n/exc-c14n interop samples

From: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:18:16 +0200
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
cc: Aleksey Sanin <aleksey@aleksey.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-ID: <37924061.1022872696@crypto>



--On Freitag, 31. Mai 2002 17:51 +0100 merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie> wrote:

>
> Hi Christian,
>
> r/geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de/2002.05.31/17:34:39
>> Hi Merlin,
>>
>> merlin-c14n-three.tar.gz shows the same failing results:
>>
>> 0,  4,  5,  9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25
>> have  been validated successfully.
>>
>> These fail because of the "superflous namespaces" issue which
>> Aleksey already mentioned:
>>
>> -  2
>> - 10
>> - 19
>
> While they may appear superfluous, according to the letter
> of the spec they should be emitted. And, given that this is
> an unusual case of little use, I don't think that any
> aesthetic concerns are of particular import.

I have not read this part and your explanation completely. Will do this 
weekend.

>> These fail because I don't output an namespace as
>> a TEXT node if it's owner element is not document
>> sub set.
>>
>> -  3
>> -  6
>> -  7
>> - 24
>
> They are not output as text nodes, per se; they are output
> as any attribute or namespace node. If you attempt to parse
> this directly, then you will get a text node. If you wrap
> this in an element declaration, then you will get an
> attribute node.

Well, in ref 3, it is a Text:


<bar:Something xmlns:bar="http://example.org/bar" xml:lang="en-ie">
  xmlns:foo="http://example.org/foo"
    <foo:Nothing xmlns:foo="http://example.org/foo" xml:lang="en-ie">

>
>> unknown reason: I don't know yet why we have differences.
>>
>> -  1
>> -  8
>> - 26
>
> I would suspect because the node set omits all namespace nodes
> from the foo:Nothing element (the first instance of the foo:
> prefix).
>
> These examples are among those situations where no one
> really cares because no one should be producing node sets
> of this form; however, interop of the spec, as written,
> is relatively important.
>
> And you did ask for them ;}


Right. That's what I wanted.

Thanks again;-))

Christian


>
> Merlin
>
>> Regards,
>> Christian
>>
>> --On Freitag, 31. Mai 2002 13:18 +0100 merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> I've tweaked the input document slightly to show a few more
>>> edge cases if you're interested; see attached:
>>>
>>> Merlin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---- The information contained in this message is confidential and is
> intended for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in
> error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.
> The  unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message
> is  strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for
> direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
> of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any
> virus being passed on.
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for Content
> Security threats, including computer viruses.
> http://www.baltimore.com
>
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 13:13:16 GMT

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