RE: ACTION-510 Propose explanation of use of content vs. element in implementations

Yes, in this implementation the handling of namespaces and attributes are independent of element vs content.

Things are in flux here. I am not sure when I can get information about the other implementations.

Pratik

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:07 AM
To: Pratik Datta
Cc: Thomas Roessler; public-xmlsec@w3.org Public List
Subject: Re: ACTION-510 Propose explanation of use of content vs. element in implementations

On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:55, Pratik Datta wrote:

> I checked one of our implementations. In this one the decryptor doesn't really need the "content" vs "element".  Here is what the decryptor does :

Thanks.

>  
> It decrypts the cipher text, to get the plaintext, and then puts the plain text inside dummy start and end tags. I.e. like this  "<dummy> plaintext </dummy>" and then parses this xml document  into a DOM tree. For type = "element" it checks that the <dummy> element has only one child, whereas for type = "content" it doesn't perform this check. In either case it just takes all the children of the <dummy> node and deep imports them into the original document, replacing the <EncryptedData> element. It also does special handling for  namespaces and xml attributes that I have omitted for simplicity

I suppose the special handling for namespaces and attributes is independent of whether it's "element" or "content"?

>  I am still checking with the other implementations.

Any news from that?

Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 21:11:25 UTC