- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:24:52 -0400
- To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
> We should discuss this on the call tomorrow, thanks for the excellent > outline of issues. I have to miss the call due to a local obligation, but feel free to discuss in my absence. > Would it make sense to explicitly tell c14n2 the type of schema used (DTD, > XSD, RNG etc) as an input, or which schema validation, if any, has already > been performed on the input? The challenge, I think, is trying to enumerate in concise fashion what exactly was done. Simply validating doesn't necessarily imply that certain things happened. But it might be possible. I think there hasn't really been a systematic attempt to try and come up with a markup to describe "how a document was parsed" in terms of all the options that exist. > It seems there are too many implicit assumptions/cases possible. I don't entirely disagree, but a lot of those implicit things have nothing to do with schemas at all. Parsers have a huge number of weird options that are outside the XML specs and can influence the DOM you get (and thus what you pass into or get out of c14n). -- Scott
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 14:25:27 UTC