W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

RE: XMLE Review: xmlp wg comments to XMLE/Canonicalization WDs

From: Yin Leng Husband <Yin-Leng.Husband@compaq.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:51:08 +1000
Message-ID: <E74B412A1B5FD211AD6C0000F87C38ADE65BDF@ozyexc1.itg.qvar.cpqcorp.net>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Here are my comments on the Exclusive Canonicalization WD.

The Exc-C14N, in conjunction with XML-C14N, deals with canonicalization
independent of insignificant transformations permitted by XML 1.0
and Namespaces in XML, but does not deal with insignificant
transformations permitted by XML Schema.  This will limit its applicability
to those XMLP-based messages which will be XML Schema cognizant.

For example, the C14N specs do not deal with insignificant
transformations permitted by various XML Schema built-in datatypes
such as use of {true,false,0,1} for boolean datatype, or case-insensitivity
to "e" in scientific notation.

The C14N specs also deal with addition of default attribute (value), but not
with the default value of element content specified in XML Schema.



Minor comment on definition of terms:
If "an orphan node is a node whose parent element node is not in the
document subset"
then how can there be an "output parent of an orphan node" if this is
defined to be
"the output parent of an orphan node .. is the nearest
   ancestor element of the orphan node that is in the document subset"?



Regards, 
Yin Leng 
  



-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2001 6:53 
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: XMLE Review: xmlp wg comments to XMLE/Canonicalization WDs


I'd like to gather comments from xmlp members for the XMLE[1] and
canonicalization WD[2]

My comments from July[3], and I believe are still not addressed.  My
comments are around the usage scenarios of SOAP with XMLE, and the
processing model under validation and transformation.  Because XMLE provides
a schema, it presumably must be used by an XML Schema validator.  But there
is no treatment for how a document author of the unencrypted content or
schema should use the XMLE schema - especially given that XMLE content will
be inside SOAP elements.

In general, my comments are not SOAP specific.  The same questions arise
when retrieving a document with XMLE content whether it be SOAP or foo
encoded.  I suggest that the XMLE group should provide documentation that
describes the expected processing and validation model for documents
containing XMLE content.  While section 4 of [1] describes detailed element
processing, perhaps a new section describing message/document processing
would be useful, eg. "4.4 Complete message processing model".  I'm not sure
whether it should be normative or non-normative, though I lean to
non-normative.  Perhaps another option - though I'm not in favour of it -
would be to have a separate document published by XMLE on the topic.

If it is true that encyrption of portions of SOAP messgaes are a primary
justification for XMLE then it seems fairly important to have at least
described the overall processing model and how it works for SOAP messages.
I suggest that treatment of an enrypted and/or signed SOAP header would be a
sufficient usage scenario that would satisfy other non-soap applications.

This would certainly help for groups that have publicly stated intensions of
use SOAP and XMLE, such as OASIS SAML.

Cheers,
Dave

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2001OctDec/0014.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2001OctDec/0034.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Jul/0019.html
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 04:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC