- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:45:24 -0400
- To: "'XMLSec WG'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Using the 10/5 draft of XML Signature 2.0 as a baseline, my suggestion for this issue is to rely on the proposed "type" XML attribute in the <Selection> element to identify the grammar. Pratik already proposes that the "parameters" of the <Selection> element are defined by the "type" URI: http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-Selection It seems simplest just to maintain that approach and tie the XPath grammar we eventually come up with to the URI value we define for signing XML content. There's also a proposal for handling base64 decoded text nodes using an XPath selection, so there could be more than one type value that shares the grammar we eventually settle on, but that doesn't seem like a problem. We could define a new extension point for this, but that just seems gratuitous, since it's going to require new code anyway if you define a new selection grammar. It would make things more complex, since presumably it could lead to the IncludedXPath and ExcludedXPath elements using different grammars. I don't think we really need that much flexibility. May as well leverage a single plug point at the "type" level. Essentially that replaces the old plug point at the Transform level. (And obviously we could choose to rename type/subtype into something else, that's not important for the moment.) -- Scott
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 14:45:54 UTC