W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > January 2005

Re: *Major* problem with xml:id in canonical XML

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:01:20 -0500
Message-ID: <41F55410.9020407@metalab.unc.edu>
To: public-xml-id@w3.org

Daniel Veillard wrote:


>   IMHO this should be raised as a bug in XML Canonicalization v 1.0

I'd call it a design flaw. At this point in time, I'm not sure we can 
get away with calling it a bug and issuing an erratum. There's a lot of 
software out there that depends on the correct, spec compliant 
functioning of canonicalization, and the stack is growing monthly. I 
wouldn't want to guess how many other specs and systems would fall over 
if we pulled the this out from under them. The whole point of 
canonicalization is that you get guaranteed, byte-per-byte 
reproducibility, and changing even one bit breaks it all.

On further thought, I think the best we can do is recommend that people 
use exclusive XML canonicalization, and just live with multiple IDs if 
they use the regular form. XML Digital signatures allows alternative 
canonicalizations, and XML encryption requires exclusive XML 
canonicalization to be supported.

Longer term perhaps we should to define a new canonicalization algorithm 
that does inherit namespace mappings, xml:base, xml:space, and xml:lang 
(unlike exclusive XML canonicalization) but does not inherit xml:id. 
This would of course have different identifying URIs for use in 
signature and encryption. We only run into trouble if we redefine what 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 and 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#WithComments mean.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 20:01:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:49 UTC