Comments omitted, was RE: Interop Issues

Hi Kent,

Both the old enveloped sig transform (had it worked) and the one under the
newly proposed transform processing model would have resulted in omitted

Although the enveloped signature transform does not explicitly exclude the
comments, the <Reference URI=""> under the old system would have
canonicalized the current document to form the octet stream input for the
enveloped signature.  C14N omits comments by default.  Under the new system,
it is explicitly stated that URI="" results in a full node-set that omits

Joseph: This is exactly why the spec needed to be more specific about
comments versus no comments.  One byte of comment where it doesn't belong
and BOOM, failed reference validation.  I would therefore ask you to please
be generous in the number of changes I made that you decide to keep and/or
not substantially alter.

John Boyer
Development Team Leader,
Distributed Processing and XML
PureEdge Solutions Inc.
Creating Binding E-Commerce
v: 250-479-8334, ext. 143  f: 250-479-3772
1-888-517-2675 <>

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of TAMURA Kent
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Interop Issues

In message "Re: Interop Issues"
    on 00/08/17, TAMURA Kent <> writes:
> As canonicalizing the SignedInfo element or serializing the
> result of enveloped-siganture transform and URI="#ID", I guess
> an element is serialized with xml: prefixed attributes in its
> ancestors because these cases are *subsets* of a document.  But
> I don't know whether comment nodes are serialized or not because
> these subsets are not defined as XPath expressions.

I had a mistake.  XPath expression for the enveloped-signature
transform is defined in the specificatoin.  Comment nodes are
serialized in the enveloped-signature transform.

TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM

Received on Thursday, 24 August 2000 16:02:48 UTC