- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:20:54 -0400
- To: "XML-DSig Workshop" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>
- Cc: "Daniel Veillard" <veillard@w3.org>, bill.smith@sun.com
[I'm raising this issue while it's fresh in my mind and to put it on the issues list of the WG once it is formed.] I was talking to Philipp Hoschka (W3C Architecture Domain Lead) about some of the coordination issues with XML and we spent a small amount of time talking about filters, selectors, and XPointer when I said signed-XML was probably going to punt on the issue of using "filters" to say which elements and sub-blocks are signed. Or, only go as far as requiring that if an element block wants to be signed, it should have an ID attribute specified that can be referenced in a locator in the manifest. Philipp responded by stating that if you permit URIs, then you permit XPointer. [1] Were we going so far as to say only URIs, or only certain types of URIs. (He also mentioned that XSL selectors and XPtr should converge.) This seems odd to me in the following way. signed-XML will be a XML 1.0 application, but need it be an XPtr application, do they mean the same thing? Imagine one implementor who supports XPtr and uses them in his manifest, and another who doesn't. The semantics are not shared and in a way that is dangerous to interoperability. I'm comfortable with the idea of a signed-XML application failing on the fact that it doesn't recognize a HTTP scheme (e.g., locator="foobar:ASF*&@#$~~"). But less comfortable on failing because of fragment identifiers. Presently, Richard Brown's signed-XML draft states that: Locator: Locator value that contains either a URI [RFC 2396], a fragment identifier, or both. Notice that making use of a fragment identifier for a document content other than XML is out of the scope of this draft proposal and may lead to inconsistent results. This certainly seems true. But I think we should be more specific. Also, this might even be true in XML if XPtr is used, because the semantics of the content after the "#" (i.e., "http://*#stuff") is defined by the MIME type. Does the registered MIME type specify XPtr? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xptr ___________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 6 May 1999 16:20:57 UTC