- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:19:45 -0400
- To: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Ed Simon wrote on 2009-07-28: > The English language, alas, makes it a little ambiguous as to whether > this means an XPath node-set has to be a well-formed XML document or > only octet streams have to be well-formed XML documents. My > understanding is that it is generally taken that the input has to be a > well-formed XML document whether it is an XPath node-set or an octet > stream. (If so, we should clarify that in the Canonicalization > specification.) Pretty (as in 100%) sure that's NOT the case. C14N is such a pain because it's NOT assumed to be anything but a totally arbitrary node set. In the octet stream case, it's a well-formed document, but not otherwise. > I also believe it would be sensible to support XPath expressions that > return generic XPath node sets. I'm guessing most implementations do > this but I'd like to hear how. For example, what is the prescribed > treatment of the following examples of node sets returned by an XPath > Filtering transform in order to produce a hashable octet stream?: In all cases, you apply c14n. I think you got lost because you took a wrong turn on the input rules there. -- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 22:20:29 UTC