W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Test Case with xml-dsig

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:40:07 +0000
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>, Gabe Wachob <gwachob@wachob.com>, public-xml-id@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bzmyfl79k.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> writes:

> / John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com> was heard to say:
> | C14N isn't "just plain broken" with respect to xml:id.
> |
> | C14N was produced years before xml:id and therefore 
> | "does not support" xml:id.
> No offense was intended, please accept my apologies for not expressing
> that more carefully.
> C14N was written with the assumption that all attributes in the xml:
> namespace were inherited by their descendants. When C14N was written,
> the only examples of attributes in the xml: namespace were xml:lang,
> xml:space, and xml:base, all of which behave in this way.

Er, no, xml:base (which may or may not have come later), certainly
does _not_ behave that way.  Consider 

<root xml:base="../elsewhere" xlink:href="relative.html">
 <internal xlink:href="relative.html"/>

Those two hrefs are to the _same_ absolute URI, which would not be
true if xml:base were copied downwards!

Richard Tobin first pointed this out, as far as I know.

 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 09:40:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:40 UTC