W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: Importing xmldsig-core stuff...

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:44:45 -0500
To: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1F97yI-000108-JV@lisa.w3.org>

I had no luck with Stephen's reference [1] but this
worked for me.

Ed Simon
(613) 726-9645
Interested in XML, Web Services, or Security?  Visit "www.xmlsec.com".
Now available!  "Web Services Security" published by Osborne (ISBN#

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: May 25, 2004 06:57
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Cc: Stephen Farrell
Subject: Importing xmldsig-core stuff...


I've an internet-draft ([1] for the sacred WG) which is in the RFC editor's
author's 48 state.

It contains an XML schema, which contains the following fragment:

         <import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"

The RFC editor pointed out that their schema checker objects to the
schemaLocation value above since they don't have a dsig core schema at that
relative location.

The schemaLocation attribute is however just a hint [2], so the schema
passes using the checker on the w3c site.

 From memory, this is the result of the schema checker I used to use (in a
previous job) which I needed to be able to use offline.

No one's noticed this until now, but then again, I'm not sure how many
people have tried to write code for this protocol (few at any rate).

So, the question:-

- is it ok as is?
- should I change the value of schemaLocation to use an
   absolute URL, in particular [3]?

I assume the latter is better.

Can you cc' me on any responses - I'm not subscribed to this list.


[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#schemaLocation
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 21:44:33 UTC

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