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

Re: XPath Filter2 schema valid?

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:01:48 -0400
To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <200209231401.48434.reagle@w3.org>


Hi Scott, thanks for pointing this out. I've changed the editors' version to 
use string instead.
  http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-filter2/
  http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-filter2/xmldsig-filter2.xsd


On Sunday 22 September 2002 03:43 am, Scott Cantor wrote:
> In the course of using the new XPath transform and schema validating a
> signed document, I encountered schema validation errors from the
> Xerces-C 2.1 parser when I pointed it at the schema that's documented in
> the specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-filter2/).
>
> Specifically, the choice to declare the Filter attribute values as an
> enumeration of NOTATIONs rather than strings is causing problems,
> because there are no <xsd:notation> elements that declare the three
> values of the enumeration.
>
> It's also worth noting that NOTATIONs are QNames, which means that a
> namespace has to be specified along with the local names. By spec, the
> schema declares them to be in the XPath2 namespace, which is fine. But
> note that the samples in the spec document use conflicting forms in
> which sometimes the default namespace is
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-filter2/ and sometimes it isn't, and yet
> the Filter attribute values are always unqualified in the samples.
>
> Both these issues go away if xsd:NOTATION is converted to xsd:string in
> the schema, which would seem to be ok, but that's not what's in the
> document right now.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 14:01:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:16 GMT