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

Re: Should I organize a call on the XPath Filter?

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:58:09 +0000
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "Christian Geuer-Pollmann" <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>, "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020320165809.C1DAB4422C@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

>On Tuesday 19 March 2002 19:58, John Boyer wrote:
>> From a change standpoint, defining set intersection and subtraction is a
>> relatively small change to the spec.  I think the optimizations will
>> also be easy to define and not hard on the programmer because we
>> basically only want to account for the current include/exclude cases.
>> Given the optimizations, I would certainly agree that the set operations
>> represent a preferable architecture.
>I agree that this seems to be where the consensus is headed. I'm not aware 
>of any standing opposition to set operations though there is still some 
>confusion: Christian asking about what exactly Merlin is proposing [1], and 
>my confusion about multiple transforms operating on the *original* 
>document, not their preceding transforms output [2]. So before we have a 
>call or resort to a poll I'd recommend we gather our thoughts and first 
>reflect these changed in the document. Then we can further discuss as 

To answer 2, in case it's not clear from my last message (which hopefully
addresses 1), the XPath expression is evaluated in the context of the
input document and then the result is applied to the input node set.

I think, as an aside, that a sequence of XPath, XPath filter and Enveloped
signature transforms can thus be reordered without altering the resulting
node set.


>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/

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 by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 12:10:15 UTC

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