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

Re: Test Case with xml-dsig

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:10:31 -0500
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
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: <87r7jraxzs.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
[...]
| 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"/>
| </root>
|
| 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.

Yes, thanks Henry. I don't think your example is actually complex
enough to demonstrate the problem though. If you canonicalize at the
root, there's no problem and if you canonicalize at internal, you get:

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

which is still OK. But add another level of hierarchy and I think
C14N does the wrong thing with xml:base too:

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

Now, by my reading of C14N, which may be incorrect, canonicalizing
internal would produce:

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

which is wrong.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 15:12:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 8 February 2005 15:12:02 GMT