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

RE: space

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:23:20 +0100
To: <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LBEPJAONIMDADHFHAEAOIEHNCMAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Joseph,

I would rather leave the spec as it is.

I think that adding an xml:space attribute in the child element of the
Object/SignatureProperty is functionally equivalent, but does not change
the spec in this late stage.

Regards, Gregor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:39 PM
> To: Gregor Karlinger
> Subject: xml:space
>
>
> Gregor,
>
> Would you be opposed to the inclusion of two anyAttributes so people can
> add xml:space to SignatureProperties and Object at this late stage in the
> game?
>
> We actually have IESG approval now so the doc is back in our
> hands and Don
> and I believe we can justify this as a merely editorial tweak assuming
> there is no objection, but I want to be careful on that front.
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: Re: Whitespace
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:08:13 -0500
> From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
> To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
>
> On Tuesday 08 January 2002 13:04, Rich Salz wrote:
> > I believe that the SignatureProperty and Object element definitions
> > should be modified to allow the xml:space attribute.  I'm proposing
> > those two, because I believe those are the most likely elements within
> > ds:Signature that will be covered by a signature.
>
> Hi Rich, we are on the very cusp (I hope this week) of getting IESG
> approval and moving forward. Consequently, the only tweaks we've accepted
> since we entered PR are those that don't upset *any* person, previous
> concensus, instances, or implementations: just small tweaks that  make the
> spec better in everyone's eyes.
>
> To implement your proposal we'd have two options:
> 1. Add the following to the two element definitions that would then permit
> xml:space and xml:lang
>   <anyAttribute namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"/>
> 2. Or to enable xml:space but preclude xml:lang:
>   <xsd:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
>     schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd"/>
>     ...
>      <xsd:attribute ref="xml:space" use="optional"/>
>
> I don't see either violating my threshold of slipping it in if
> others think
> this is a good idea and no one objects. (The first is better IMHO.)
>
> However, if you did this, wouldn't this also preserve the whitespace
> between the ds:Object and the ext:Foo? I'd think that if you're worried
> about the whitespace in ext:Foo, it should have the xml:space, not
> necessarily the ds:Object?
>
> --
>
> 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 Monday, 14 January 2002 02:23:36 GMT

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