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

Re: Minor comments for Last Call drafts of 20011018

From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 02:08:37 +0900
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xenc <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5E378F80.E3FAFD73-ON49256B20.005B478A@LocalDomain>


Joseph,

>> Thanks.  I don't see any problem on it.
>
>Ok. BTW I noticed that one of the edits remove the two parameter entities
>from the schema DOCTYPE: <!ENTITY % p ''> <!ENTITY % s ''>. If you provide
>a DOCTYPE (which permits DTD validation) than you should retain these
>entities as they are defined in the schema DTD itself in a way contrary to
>how we want our validation done. It's an odd thing I only discovered after
>working with schema validators, you can read more about it at:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2001Feb/0145.html
>
>I've re-inserted them.

OK.


>> >Prefix and namespace name of each namespace that is in scope for e, the
>> >first element node in X. [is this e different than that in
>> >decryptIncludedNodes? -JR]
>>
>> It may or may not be different and depends on what node-set is given as
>> input.  For example, given the node-set created from the following
>> document:...
>
>Could we change the first e then? Maybe to "f" for the first element node
>in X?

Yes, but you can just remove "e" from the text as "Prefix and namespace
name of each namespace that is in scope for the first element node in
<em>X</em>."


>> >Name and value of each entity [is this the formal definion of entity
>> > from xml1.0 or something else -JR] that is effective for the XML
>> > document causing X.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether this is the formal definition, but what I intend is
>> a set of entity name and value bindings declared in a document type
>> declaration.
>
>I think you mean parameter entity then?
>
http://java.sun.com/xml/jaxp/dist/1.1/docs/tutorial/glossary.html#parameter
>Entity

No, I mean not parameter entity but general entity, especially parsed
entity.


>> >The MANDATORY URI attribute value of the dcrpt:Except element MUST be a
>> >non-empty same-document URI reference [ URI] (i.e., a number sign ('#')
>> >character followed by a fragment identifier) or XPointer expression and
>> >identify an enc:EncryptedData or enc:EncryptedKey element.
>>
>> If we allow an XPointer expression, we have to define how the expression
>> is evaluated.  We can refer to the text described in 4.3.3.3
>> Same-Document URI-References of the XML Signature spec for definition,
>> but do you think the text is enough?  Also do you think we have to
>> support all XPointer expressions, though XML Signature does not?
>>
>> You added to the above text the EncryptedKey element being identified.
>> Because this transform does nothing for the element, I believe it does
>> not make sense.
>
>I've lost the context for this issue. You are advocating that we remove
the
>XPointer text, right?

No, rather, I advocate we should support XPointer.  But, I believe we don't
have to support all of the XPointer, like XML Signature.

Thanks,
Takeshi IMAMURA
Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
imamu@jp.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 12:05:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:19 GMT