- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:12:48 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: dee3@torque.pothole.com, w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
On Friday 10 January 2003 10:55, Marc Hadley wrote: > > <Reference > > URI="http://example.com/foo.html"> > > <Transforms> > > <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2002/11/sm-c14n"/> > > <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> > > </Transforms> > > Would there be any value in specifying both a distinct transform and a > canonicalization algorithm ? This is what I did above... Oh, there's probably a terminology issue involved? A canonicalization algorithm *is* a transform. It's a transform that's understood to create a canonical form without incidental variances (under some applications definition of "incidental"); these particular types of transforms can be applied against SignedInfo as well -- while generic multi-step transform processes can't. So with this said, what exactly did you mean? > > 3. Just curious, but how much of a demand was for these application > > variances, particularly "0" and "false." (Would seem easier just to > > choose > > one from the outset...?) > > IIRC, the working group wanted to use the standard simple schema types > where possible. Even if this were fixed we would still have to > normalize 'defaulted' attribute values, processing instructions and > whitespace. But, if I understand correctly, you don't want to require schema validation? (Otherwise, SchemaCentic c14n might be worth consideration? http://www.uddi.org/pubs/SchemaCentricCanonicalization-20020710.htm ) > > http://www.w3.org/2002/07/xml-exc-c14n-errata#E02 > > E02 2002-10-03 (Error) > > In section 4 Use in XML Security, the data type of the PrefixList > > attribute > > value is specified as NMTOKENS in both the DTD and Schema. This does > > not > > permit the occurrence of the '#default' token in the attribute value > > because of the "#" character. Consequently, the type of this attribute > > value should be CDATA in a DTD and/or xsd:string in a XML Schema. > > Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think the errata results in any > changes being required though or did I miss something ? No, just a heads up that if you include the DTD/schema within one of your own, you should use the corrected version.
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 11:13:02 UTC