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

Re: Decryption transform interop samples

From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:02:30 +0900
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF463A5ACD.EBEA96BB-ON49256C35.000B951D@LocalDomain>


>>Though I didn't try the ones using XPointer because
>> I didn't support it, I succeeded in the others.
>I presume this means the following two cases, but all others pass? (Also,
>you would not be able to validate the signature used in the example of
>section 3.3?)


>> I'm inclined to stick with what we have: Our processing
>> basically mirrors xmldsig (some customers do indeed need
>> XPointers), and we leave implementors the option of going
>> to great lengths to dereference XPointers into replacement
>> node sets if they want.
>I'm going to agree. The implementation requirement is to ensure the text
>well written and to show some evidence of support for the feature. I can't

>forsee any interop problems arising from this (we're just borrowing from
>xmldsig) and the fact that there were enough (optional) full XPointers
>implementations in xmldsig is more relevant to whether we include them
>than whether we get more implementations in the XENC WG.

I agree.  I don't see any problems of supporting full XPointers according
to the result from XMLDSIG.  I don't have any plan to support them for now,

>> In XMLDSIG, the URI #foo is always evaluated in the context of
>> the signature document.
>What is confusing me here is the term "signature document". Do we mean the

>document identified by the Reference URI? Or the document that the
>signature occurs in?

To my understanding, the term means the latter, i.e., the document
containing the Signature element concerned.

Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
Received on Saturday, 14 September 2002 23:10:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:04 UTC