W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re:

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:28:35 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000726142823.00776f40@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, "Www-Xml-Linking-Comments@W3. Org" <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
What does C14N do about relative URIs in external entities in the
absence of any xml:base and how does xml:base cause a problem that
isn't already there with external entities?

See also some of the following:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0056
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0047
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0062

and the rest of the many messages in this archive on this issue.

paul

At 12:03 2000 07 26 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
> I realize this is  after the last call period, but the matter was brought
to my attention after the  last call period for XML base.  XML base is
restricted from applying to external entities.  However, when you c14n a
document, the external entity content is brought into the document, so
xml:base will apply to it.    Right now, I have  language in c14n that
propagates xml:base to descendant elements in the case of  document
subsets, but the problem above occurs even when one does a c14n of the
whole document.  I think c14n is  doing the right thing in that it is
consistent with what xml:base should  do:  the entities are no longer
external, so xml:base attributes from  ancestors should apply to them.  It
think the problem is that the meaning  of the content is changed based on
where we get it from.  We have no way of  retaining information on content
derived from external entities.  In  particular, the feature seems to
contradict the language of section 4.4.2 of XML  1.0:  "An entity is
included when its replacement  text is retrieved and processed, in place of
the reference itself, as though  it were part of the document at the
location the reference was recognized.  "  Since the  replacement text
should be treated 'as though it were part of the document', we  should not
introduce an attribute into the xml namespace that violates this  concept.   
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2000 15:28:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:40 GMT