- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:10:31 -0500
- To: "'Thomas Roessler'" <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Frederick Hirsch'" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Thomas Roessler wrote on 2010-02-09: >> That would be a circular reference in which you had a KeyInfoReference >> as a child of the KeyInfo it pointed to. > > So? I didn't see any point in allowing a broken reference if it's easy to preclude. Obviously other cycles and loops wouldn't be automatically detected, just the simple case. > My meta point here is that we should try to not constrain URIs in the > Signature syntax unless we absolutely need to. I prefer to allow only what's precisely needed and avoid the needless complexity of the full syntax. > If fragment identifiers in XML documents are using some kind of xpointer at > some point, then that should be fine. Well, I already wrote 2.0 language explicitly precluding that for References. Since this is mainly a 2.0 proposal, I was trying to be consistent with that set of options. > So, if we can get by by just saying "URI reference", I'd prefer that over > defining our own subset of URI references that we permit. XML Signature 1.x already defines that for References and it's quite a nasty set of rules. I was trying to create a much more constrained subset that was more or less the same as what's allowed for 2.0 selection/references. The relative URI case was an oversight, I should have left that in. -- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 15:11:09 UTC