RE: Question on canonicalization and namespaces

So the intent is to explicitly have the namespace
explicitly somewhere in the hierarchy.

OK, thanks!
Terence


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Spielman, Terence; 'Christian Geuer-Pollmann';
> 'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Question on canonicalization and namespaces
> 
> 
> On Monday 30 September 2002 11:05 am, Spielman, Terence wrote:
> > Sorry to revive a dead topic, but it's been pointed out to me
> > that the answer I received on this list might be erroneous.
> 
> To reswap in the context, I went back and had a look at this thread:
>   
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002AprJu
> n/0293.html
> and the answers still seem reasonable, but let's have a look! <smile/>
> 
> > > > 1) Is it required that the Signature element have a namespace
> > > >    node with a value of "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"?
> > > >    [No if the XML need only be well-formed and Yes otherwise]
> ...
> > I understand both of these example, in which the namespace is
> > eitehr explicitly declared in the Signature element or inherited,
> > but the XML DSIG DTD states the following:
> >
> >    <!ATTLIST Signature
> >     xmlns   CDATA   #FIXED 'http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#'
> >     Id      ID  #IMPLIED >
> >
> > And #FIXED means that if the xmlns is omitted, it will take 
> the value of
> > specified above.  This would lead me to believe that the 
> xmlns attribute
> > does NOT explicitly need to be included or inherited.  
> Although this does
> > disturb me.  Can anyone set me straight?
> 
> I agree with Christian that (1) the abstract representation 
> (XPath/Information Set) item will always be associated with 
> the namespace, 
> and (2) that it isn't good to rely upon implicit defaults. 
> However, one 
> qualification on the XML Schema point. While we started out 
> using a DTD, we 
> did migrate to using schema's (because of these and related 
> problems with 
> DTDs) and, as the REC says, the schema is  normative, not the DTD. 
> 
> We wanted to clearly place these element types in a 
> namespace, but we didn't 
> want to dicate exactly *where* those declarations have to 
> appear. (For 
> example, to accomodate your example in which the declaration 
> appears in a 
> ancestor). The best way we could represent this in the DTD was to use 
> #FIXED.
>

Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 13:04:30 UTC