- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:02:15 -0400
- To: "Mariano P. Consens" <mconsens@uwaterloo.ca>
- Cc: <tgindin@us.ibm.com>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 23:48 2000-05-11 -0400, Mariano P. Consens wrote: >A proposed solution to this problem will be sent in a follow up message. Did you send it? I still am not sure that such a solution is within the scope of this WG, but if you have a proposal that I can forward on to some other XML constituency (or maybe take up on xml-dev) I'd be happy to forward it on. >Regardless of any specific solution being accepted by the group, I would >suggest >to include in the text of the specification a mention of this issue, to make >the >reader aware of the potential drawback of using ID attributes within XML >Signature applications. End of 2.0 now reads: "Since a Signature element (and its Id attribute value/name) may co-exist or be combined with other elements (and their IDs) within a single XML document, care should be taken in choosing names such that there are no subsequent collisions that violate the ID uniqueness validity constraint [XML]." _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 14:02:21 UTC