- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:50:05 -0800
- To: daniel@veillard.com
- Cc: daniel@veillard.com, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF0F558A0D.7CAFE90E-ON88257129.00619AC6-88257129.0061F8C7@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Daniel, I think I missed something. I am saying that when we *do* copy xml:base, it is *not* going to break anything, and that we were requested to write the spec so that xml:base *would* be included in this process because the authors of xml:base found it useful. But you say that "Copying the xml:base when we know it's likely to break should then not be done" Can you provide an example where copying the xml:base breaks something? I have not found such an example before... Thanks, John M. Boyer, Ph.D. Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/software/ Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/boyer Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com> Sent by: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 03/06/2006 08:46 AM Please respond to daniel To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA cc daniel@veillard.com, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org Subject Re: Appling inheritance rule to xml:base, was Re: FINAL minutes for the XML On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 07:58:18AM -0800, John Boyer wrote: > But again, it's not a security problem that arises *because* of the > inheritance rule. > It is an orthogonal security problem, and an extreme edge case, that > authors could > experience if they *express* an xml:base (non-inherited) on a node > *and* it is orphaned by a filter *and* the xml:base contains a relative > URI. > > While the inheritance rule has nothing to do with addressing this problem > (whether it should > be addressed notwithstanding), the inheritance rule does remove a certain > number of other > security issues, so there is certainly no harm in retaining it. Copying the xml:base when we know it's likely to break should then not be done, I think it's better to let the user fully handle the case than handle it half way leading to deceiving expectations. I really don't think xml:base should be copied by default processing of c14n if we don't do it in a sematically correct way. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ |
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 17:50:25 UTC