- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:41:57 -0400
- To: "'Frederick Hirsch'" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
- Cc: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>, "'Thomas Roessler'" <tlr@w3.org>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
Frederick Hirsch wrote on 2009-10-16: > I'm not sure I understand the harm of more than one profile of an > existing specification for different purposes. The core XPath spec is > defined and use of a profile need not be that confusing. Well, profiling is done for different reasons. One such reason is so that people can implement only subsets. The problem with multiple profiles is that you can't reuse those subset implementations. > I agree it makes sense for XML Security WG to define a profile as part > of its work to be sure it is appropriate for security application. I think it's important that we make this extensible so that we can leave that part of the standard agile enough to change, and we all agreed to that idea. >> Overall there is difference is motivations - The Dsig Xpath subset >> is designed with the constraints of a streaming parser. Code >> complexity is not issue - it just needs to be efficient in time and >> memory usage. Whereas the WS Fragment XPath subset is designed to >> reduce code complexity. However I think WS-Fragment can also benefit >> from streaming. I have to disagree with this one. I think code complexity is a huge problem, and I favor that requirement at least as much as streaming is. -- Scott
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 14:42:40 UTC