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

Re: Why is Except limited to local fragments?

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:22:26 -0500
Message-Id: <200203012122.QAA32291@tux.w3.org>
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>, "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
On Friday 01 March 2002 12:05, merlin wrote:
> We may need a fragment of text to further clarify XPointer support
> when it is applied to a different document from the signature.
> In such a case, here() is an error and the XPointer initial context
> is the root of the new document? We don't have this problem with
> XPointers in dsig because they always refer to the same document.

I'm not sure I understand this, I'll defer to the authors. <smile/>

> On a separate note, should we profile the decryption transform to
> allow non-XML content (output is an octet stream)? 

We discussed the scenario below in September and Hiroshi suggested we would 
need a new function:
  Instead, we should define a new function that decrypts an
  xenc:EncryptedData element with a type other than Element
  or Content to an octet stream.  Also we have to state that
  when such an xenc:EncryptedData element is being
  decrypted, the input to the transform has to be a node-set
  that has the xenc:EncryptedData element as the first node.

As is my tendency I tend not to push for something unless someone says they 
want it. Hiroshi/Takeshi, is Merlin's usage scenario the same as what you 
were thinking? If so, would you like to propose some text?


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, 1 March 2002 16:22:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:03 UTC