- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:06:44 -0400
- To: "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, "'Meiko Jensen'" <Meiko.Jensen@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
> Regarding complexity, I think it is ok to be complex. XPath 1.0 is complex > and 2.0 is even more. What we are proposing is much less complex than > either. I am assuming most Signature implementation will just be DOM based > and not use streaming at all. Streaming is only for very performance > sensitive usages. One point of input on this "subjective" aspect...I think the breaking point is can you plausibly imagine people trying to use a clean room "not full XPath, just what the profile needs" implementation inside a DOM-based signature implementation so as to avoid pulling in/requiring an XPath library? (The streaming implementations will be one-offing everything anyway, that's why I'm just thinking of the DOM side.) If yes, we want to limit options as much as possible. If not (or if it's a bad idea), then as long as it's consistent with XPath, I agree that it probably doesn't matter that much. -- Scott
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 21:07:17 UTC