W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > January 2002

RE: content type decryption clarification?

From: Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@zolera.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:32:47 -0500
To: <reagle@w3.org>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HNEILHLKDJAILJJBNELPCEDHCLAA.hirsch@zolera.com>
Joseph,

I'm missing something obvious in the sibling discussion.

The XML after decryption produced in the example is
<root>text inside root<!--afasd--><?sfd d sdf kjghkds ?></root>

to me that looks valid: character data, comment, PI , since the chardata is
0 or 1 in the production:
content    ::=    CharData? ((element | Reference | CDSect | PI | Comment)
CharData?)*

what is the problem with it?

I'm trying to understand an example of non-well formed XML (other than the
no root element example).
If there isn't one then I'd change the text to state that decryption might
result in a document
without a root element, which is not well formed, but leave out the
statement about siblings.

Example:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Jan/0017.html
spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-content

Thanks

< Frederick

---
Frederick Hirsch
Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com/
Information Integrity, XML Security


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-encryption-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-encryption-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:16 AM
> To: hirsch@zolera.com; xml-encryption@w3.org
> Subject: Re: content type decryption clarification?
>
>
> Frederick,
>
> I too have a sense that the text isn't quite right, but I was
> hoping folks
> would check me on it in this thread:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Jan/0023.html
>
> See Christian's original email:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Jan/0017.html
>
> On Friday 11 January 2002 10:17, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> > In the editors draft the section on encryption processing rules (4.1,
> > item 5) states
> >
> > . ( Note: If the Type is "content" the plaintext resulting from
> > decryption may not be well formed if the EncryptedData element was (a)
> > the root element of a document, or (b) has other siblings (e.g. PIs and
> > text nodes).)
> >
> >
> > I understand the first case - decrypting the EncryptedData element will
> > result in a document without a root element, which is not well-formed.
> >
> > I do not understand the second case. In the case of having text nodes,
> > this implies the EncryptedData element was the child of an element, when
> > decrypted there would be two text node children of that
> element, which is
> > legal isn't it? What am I missing here?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com/
> > Information Integrity, XML Security
>
> --
>
> 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 Friday, 11 January 2002 13:26:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:02 UTC