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

Re: RDF C14N Inclusive or Exclusive

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:24:21 -0500
Message-Id: <200203061424.JAA28729@tux.w3.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:49, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Of course, the RDF group could say that namespace declarations on the
> propertyElt (the one with rdf:parseType="Literal") are put on the
> InclusiveNamespace PrefixList. That would then be a bit more natural and
> less of a change than modifying the "Literal" word as I suggested in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0041.html

Or, you could just use Canonical XML. (Is the RDF usage scenario that you 
will want to be serializing subsets of an XML document and that you expect 
to move those subsets between documents? I'd expect that the  RDF is in 
some datastore, and then you emit those bits that you want to canonicalize 
(i.e., your not using a particular XML document as the actual store during 
processing). for transmission before their sucked into some other data 

> This example would then become:
>   <eg:bar rdf:parseType="Literal"
> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>     <foo xsi:type="xsd:decimal">10.09</foo>
>   </eg:bar>
> where the RDF parser treats the namespace decl as asserting that
>  InclusiveNamespace PrefixList = { xsd }
> and then canonicalizes the xml literal on that basis.


> Doesn't work well with putting the C14N into xml literal equality though.

I don't understand this. (Why?)


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 Wednesday, 6 March 2002 09:25:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:37 UTC