- From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:40:07 -0700
- To: "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, "'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Hi TAMURA-san, In section 5.4 of the XPath spec, the namespace URI for all namespace nodes is declared to be NULL, so the comparison as defined always works (the primary key is always the same). Another way to put this is that I intend option A below. I haven't seen option B used elsewhere, and I don't think there would be any benefit in deriving one here. Thanks, John Boyer Software Development Manager PureEdge Solutions, Inc. (formerly UWI.Com) Creating Binding E-Commerce jboyer@PureEdge.com -----Original Message----- From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of TAMURA Kent Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:42 PM To: 'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG (E-mail)' Subject: Re: XPath Transform, 3rd version In message "XPath Transform, 3rd version" on 00/04/06, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com> writes: > TAMURA-san: You posted a question about order of namespace nodes. The > paragraph about serializing the namespace and attribute axes states that the > primary key for lex order of nodes on these axes is the namespace URI, so I > don't know what the problem is. Do you see a problem with using namespace > URI (e.g. are you thinking we need to always add the default definition for > xmlns to the initial evaluation context)? A namespace declaration has no namespace, that is to say, there is no namespace binding on "xmlns" prefix. A URI as the value of a namespace declaration is not its namespace. So, there are two interpretations: a) Namespace declaration has no namespace URI. The primary key is empty. The secondary key is a local name (the declared prefix.) b) Regards the value of a namespace declaration as namespace URI. The primary key is the URI. The secondary key is a localname (the declared prefix.) -- TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 12:31:14 UTC