- From: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:33:11 -0400
- To: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec@w3.org
Pratik Datta wrote: > I understand the concern of streaming XPath parsers, but the XPath > subset that I am defining is simple enough, that an implementor can > define streaming XPath engine at least with less complexity than a > canonicalization engine. Also we are not preventing people from using a > regular DOM based XPath engine, which is very readily available. Yes, but that is contradictory to what we are trying to achieve. I think if we want to create a successful streaming profile, we should make sure that it is something that can be realistically implemented. I don't want XPath to be the C14N of the streaming profile. It seems to me that the onus will be on XML Signature implementors to create a streaming XPath implementation. If that's the case, I think we need to prove that this is not a really difficult task. > By the way, what is the NodeSelection transform ? It doesn't exist, it was just an example of a node selection Transform that would be streaming-friendly and not necessarily tied to XPath (perhaps one could use XPath as the implementation though). I admit I haven't really given this much thought and it may be the case that anything we come up with on our own would be similar enough to XPath expressions that it wouldn't make much sense. --Sean
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 14:34:22 UTC