- From: Glenn Marcy <gmarcy@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:15:56 -0400
- To: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>, Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFFDDFF19D.5149178D-ON85257344.0063F48C-85257344.006456C5@us.ibm.com>
I've looked through all of my notes and don't see any other references. The change did indeed come directly from the message Konrad mentions. I agree that there doesn't seem to be an issue in reverting the wording to it's previous form. Glenn Konrad Lanz wrote on 08/21/2007 05:28:24 PM: > Dear all, > > I searched the list archive, and found the first draft for section 2.4 > in June 2006 [4]. Unfortunately I cannot exactly recall the intention of > that change. Nonetheless, looking at it today and todays wording of the > xml:base fix up, it makes perfect sense to revert this change. > > > The relevant change is in section 2.4, where the language was changed > > from: > > > > The processing of an element node E MUST be modified slightly when an > > XPath node-set is given as input and the element's parent is omitted > > from the node-set. > > > > to: > > > > The processing of an element node E MUST be modified slightly when an > > XPath node-set is given as input and some of the element's ancestors > > are omitted from the node-set. > > Thus, may I propose to do this fix together with the feedback from CR > Testing ? > > Looking at the current text of c14n 1.1 the reverting should not harm > the processing of xml:base. It says > > "... ancestor axis contains successive elements E1...En that are omitted > and E=En+1 is included" > > implying that the parent (En) has been omitted. > > > There is however a second point I'd like to discuss here, which needs > some introduction and an example: > > [4] was focused on the xml:base fix-up and hence lacked an update to the > ancestor axis examination step for simple inheritable attributes > > cf.: "This examination is performed until the first rendered occurrence > exclusive ..." > > As far as I recall intended to fix the idiosyncrasy of unnecessary > copying of inheritable xml:base attributes in c14n. > > Now, please consider the following example. > > <e1 xml:lang="de" xml:base="http://www.example.org"> > <e2> > <e3> > <e4/> > </e3> > </e2> > </e1> > > With <e2> being omitted this would result in > > <e1 xml:lang="de" xml:base="http://www.example.org"> > <e3 xml:lang="de" (xml:base="http://www.example.org")> > <e4/> > </e3> > </e1> > > (xml:base="http://www.example.org") is written in parenthesis to show > that it wouldn't appear in c14n 1.1 . > Without (xml:base="http://www.example.org") it should be the result > according to the text in c14n 1.0 . > > The following however would be more natural and may be an option for > future versions of c14n. > > <e1 xml:lang="de" xml:base="http://www.example.org"> > <e3> > <e4/> > </e3> > </e1> > > The XML Security Maintenance Group might want to change this > idiosyncrasy in a version post c14n 1.1 . > > Keeping this idiosyncrasy in both versions C14n 1.0 and 1.1 however > remains compatibility for documents not using xml:base or xml:id. > > But then a question of consistency arises and we may want to have > xml:base also being copied into an orphan. Just to be consistent with > the other attributes in the xml namespace although it is not really > necessary. > > This may result in the following sentence being removed from the > current c14n 1.1 text. > > > Then fix-up is only performed if at least one of E1 ... En has an > > xml:base attribute. > > Assuming others also feel it's worth to achieve consistency here, may I > propose to consider such a change also as a result from CR-Testing ? > > Any Thoughts? > > Konrad > > Grosso, Paul schrieb: > > Forwarding to XML Core with permission. > > > > paul > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, 2007 August 21 10:55 To: Grosso, Paul; > > Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM Cc: w3c-xml-cg@w3.org; Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM > > Subject: Clarification sought re C14N11 > > > > Paul, Norm, > > > > Sean Mullan (CCed) noticed [3] that the C14N 1.1 CR [1] can be read > > in a way that would copy inheritable attributes to all children of an > > element if that element's parent have been removed. That behavior > > would be different from the one in C14N 1.0 [2]. > > > > The relevant change is in section 2.4, where the language was changed > > from: > > > > The processing of an element node E MUST be modified slightly when an > > XPath node-set is given as input and the element's parent is omitted > > from the node-set. > > > > to: > > > > The processing of an element node E MUST be modified slightly when an > > XPath node-set is given as input and some of the element's ancestors > > are omitted from the node-set. > > > > We are wondering whether this is an intentional change, and the > > behavior sketched at [3] is desired, or whether this was an > > inadvertent change, and the text is meant to describe the behavior > > known from C14N 1.0. Preliminary discussion seems to suggest that > > people are leaning toward the latter interpretation; in that case, it > > might be worth cleaning up the text while considering CR feed-back. > > > > Your guidance would be most welcome, to ensure that the right kind of > > guidance is provided to implementors in preparation for the interop > > event. > > > > 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621/ 2. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n 3. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Aug/0049.h > > tml > > > > Regards, > > > -- > Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology > Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria > Tel: +43 316 873 5547 > Fax: +43 316 873 5520 > https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz > http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at > > Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate): > https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm > [attachment "Konrad.Lanz.vcf" deleted by Glenn Marcy/Cupertino/IBM]
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 18:16:10 UTC