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

Re: content type decryption clarification?

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:32:49 -0500
Message-Id: <200201111933.OAA23801@tux.w3.org>
To: <hirsch@zolera.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
On Friday 11 January 2002 13:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> I'm missing something obvious in the sibling discussion.

Ah, ok! I knew my mind would finally dislodge:  I got a start on a 
different thread but still knew it wasn't going in the right direction...

> 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?)*

Actually, this is not well-formed. To be well-formed it has to match the 
document production  (rule 1 [1]). We are using rule 43 for content (which 
actually has the term "balanced" associated with it from the XML Fragment 
Interchange spec [2]).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-document
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xml-fragment-20010212

The text now reads (new revision: 1.105):

( Note: If the Type is "content" the plaintext resulting from decryption 
may not be well formed if (a) the original plaintext was not well formed 
(e.g., PCDATA by itself is not well formed), or (b) the EncryptedData 
element was the root element of a document that was decrypted.) 
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 14:33:07 UTC

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