- From: John Boyer <jboyer@uwi.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:13:43 -0700
- To: "DSig Group" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter Norman" <pnorman@mediaone.net>
There were two new points raised by Peter regarding how the marker method should behave. 1) The marker elements should be defined as being omitted from all signatures, even if those signatures don't explicitly indicate that they should be removed. 2) The marker elements should be able to be added regardless of whether the application language's DTD would permit them. If we take your suggestion of making PIs for the markers, then they will not choke the DTD and the XPath can identify them using the ancestor-or-self and previous-sibling and following-sibling axes. However, I wouldn't count on PIs being thrown out of c14n because there are those who feel they want to capture the PI binding between XML and an XSL stylesheet. c14n isn't finished yet, so PI exclusion may change. With regard to making the markers elements instead, would it be fair to say that a marker element defined in the namespace of either your application domain or possibly even dsig, wouldn't that address your second point above? This would leave your first point of how to get automatic exclusion. Although we could define a dsig element in the spec that is omitted from all signatures implicitly, my first reaction would be that if you want all of your signatures to omit a specific element, you should say so explicitly in your XPath. It is not a point I'll go up to bat for though. If the WG decides to always throw out one kind of element *in the dsig namespace*, that would be OK. You could then sprinkle this element throughout your document, and use the xpath with ancestor-or-self and previous-sibling and following-sibling axes to identify nodes that are between them. You could use the xpath to directly identify the target elements and have the semantic for message construction be that we obtain that which is between markers, but this is the main point that I'm actually hoping to persuade the WG against since I cannot figure out how to get this semantic to achieve document closure, which means we either abandon document closure or have two semantics, the marker semantic and the semantic of directly applying the xpath as a transform of the document by applying the node test to each node of the document's parse tree. John Boyer Software Development Manager UWI.Com -- The Internet Forms Company
Received on Thursday, 23 September 1999 14:16:18 UTC