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

Re: Decryption Transform processing question

From: Ari Kermaier <arik@phaos.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:22:30 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020502104813.0221dec0@verio.phaos.com>
To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, reagle@w3.org, xml-encryption@w3.org

> >I thought that XPath caveat was weird as well,
>
>I don't think that it is weird.  If we define the processing rules over
>node-sets, we replace some nodes in a node-set with ones in the other
>node-set.  It looks easy, but is not possible because, according to the
>XPath spec, a node-set is defined as a set of nodes in a document tree.
>That is, it is because the relation between node-sets from distinct
>document trees is not defined.  So we defined the processing rules over
>octet streams.  Does this make sense?

Yes, actually -- explained that way it makes perfect sense, thanks. In 
practice, it may be possible to recombine node-sets using a particular 
implementation, but formally the idea is undefined in XPath, so it must be 
excluded from processing rules specified in the context of XPath.

> >Since <Bar>'s namespace is in scope for the first element of the input
> >node-set, <Foo>, parsing context C is {xmlns:baz="http://example.org/baz",
> >xml:something="other"}.
>
>Sorry for confusing you.  The text defining the parsing context should be
>tweaked.  In this case, C is {xmlns:baz="http://example.org/baz"}.  Please
>consider the meaning of the word "parsing context".

I see -- so C is defined as containing "each namespace that is in scope for 
the first element node in X", but not namespaces that are first declared in 
that element itself?

> >So the result of wrapping would be:
> >
> ><dummy xmlns:baz="http://example.org/baz" xml:something="other"><Foo
> >xml:something="other" Id="foo">
> ><plaintext />
> ></Foo></dummy>
>
>The result would be:
>
><dummy xmlns:baz="http://example.org/baz"><Foo xml:something="other" Id
>="foo">
>   <plaintext />
></Foo></dummy>

Canonicalization after parsing and unwrapping removes the extra 
'xml:something-"other"' declaration, so the end result is the same, I 
think. Might there be examples where the end result would be different?

> >Parsing, unwrapping and canonicalizing would result in:
> >
> ><Foo xmlns:baz="http://example.org/baz" xml:something="other" Id="foo">
> >  <plaintext />
> ></Foo>

Thank you for the explanations.


Ari Kermaier    arik@phaos.com
Senior Software Engineer
Phaos Technology Corp.    http://www.phaos.com/
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 11:20:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:21 GMT