Re: Clarifying XPath Filtering Transform text (pertains to Action-350, etc.)

No, I do not have the level of understanding I would need. Beginning to
get that level will require some discussion during our next telecon.

Ed


On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 12:08 -0400, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> Ed
> 
> Is it possible for you to take an action to make a concrete proposal  
> either for C14N11 errata and/or propose text for Canonicalization 2.0?
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Chair XML Security WG
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:22 PM, ext Ed Simon wrote:
> 
> > Yes, the clarifications would pertain to the c14n spec. I'm not saying
> > the spec is misleading, I am saying it is not clear and it needs to be
> > explicit as to what happens in cases like what I've suggested where  
> > the
> > node set result is not just one or more element nodes or nodes that  
> > are
> > valid root children of an XML document.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 10:23 -0400, Scott Cantor wrote:
> >> Ed Simon wrote on 2009-09-09:
> >>> I believe we still need to clarify what happens, or should happen,
> >>> with the following results (adapted from my linked post mentioned
> >>> above) from the XPath Filter 2 Transform:
> >>>
> >>> For example, what is the prescribed
> >>> treatment of the following examples of node sets returned by an  
> >>> XPath
> >>> Filter 2 Transform in order to produce a hashable octet stream?:
> >>>
> >>> * a node set containing an attribute node;
> >>>
> >>> * a node set containing a text node; and
> >>>
> >>> * a node set containing all the above plus an element node.
> >>
> >> These clarifications would pertain to the c14n specs, right? I  
> >> believe the signature spec says that you always use an implicit  
> >> c14n transform if the output is a node set and the next step  
> >> requires an octet stream, so the text you're looking for would be a  
> >> clarification to the c14n specs.
> >>
> >> Since they currently are written with respect to taking a "node  
> >> set" as input, what's the misleading aspect you're trying to clarify?
> >>
> >> -- Scott
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 18:52:01 UTC