- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:48:42 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-i18n-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 18:41, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > I note you don't define what you mean by "put this in a soap envelope". Exactly: does anyone defines what this means? When people expressed concerns that Canonical XML was too "context inclusive" in scenarios like SOAP, it was my argument that "packaged" XML applications (those that compose and decompose chunks of XML betwixt documents) might need to define the mechanism of insertion/deletion for things like this. While the argument for exc-c14n was compelling none-the-less, I still believe this doesn't mitigate the need for some sort of specification regarding the creation of "synthetic infosets" if an application is doing that sort of thing. > A copy and paste of XML source and an infoset-type insertion such as > XInclude performs would give you different answers. Right, and if folks use different mechanisms (e.g., copy/paste, XInclude like mechanisms, XSLT like mechanisms, DOM mechanisms) the result might vary regardless of what we can do with canonicalization since we are only operating on the "snapshot" XML instance or node-set/Infoset prior to serialization. > I also note that > the xml:base attributes in both of the above examples don't do anything > and can be omitted from both examples without vitiating your concerns. Yes, I was trying to do no more than demonstrate the effect; not to make justify the scenario -- but I expect it will arise somewhere at sometime. -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 12:48:54 UTC