RE: Tentative signature over C14N examples

Hi Merlin,

On the other issues, great job!

On the xmlns="" issue, yes I see now that the example is incorrect.  You are
right that in e3, xmlns="" should not appear.  As a result, I will update
the example and get back to you shortly.  Also, condition 2 is redundant; I
had put it in to be clear about the fact that the top-level document element
will not ever receive an xmlns="", but I can make that clear in the sentence
that follows.

Excellent work, Merlin.

Thanks,
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   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>





><john>
>The justification is that e3 is not namespace qualified in the input, so it
>should not be namespace qualified in the output.  The problem is that,
>unfortunately, the XPath data model represents an empty default namespace
>with the absence of a node, not with the presence of a default namespace
>node having an empty value.  Thus, w.r.t. e3, we cannot tell the difference
>between <e2 xmlns=""><e3/></e2> versus <e2><e3 xmlns=""/></e2>.  All we
know
>is that e3 was not be namespace qualified on input, so we preserve this
>information on output.
></john>

>From the spec, wrt element nodes, their namespace axis and emission of
xmlns="" iff:

1. Yhe element E that owns the axis is in the node-set

Here, element E is in the node set.

2. Element E has a parent element

Here, element E has a parent element.

3. The nearest ancestor element of E in the node-set has a default namespace
   node in the node-set (default namespace nodes always have non-empty
values
   in XPath)

Here, element E has no ancestor element in the node set.

Thus I do not see why this case qualifies for xmlns="".

Incidentally, it would appear to me that condition 3 implies condition
2 and thus condition 2 is redundant?

><merlin>
>I tweaked the XPath on example 7 to suit signature processing.
></merlin>
>
><john>
>Perhaps you could provide the full XPath transform that you've used.  I'm
>pretty sure your tweak is fine, but I'd like to see the declaration of the
>ieft prefix.  BTW, is there some reason why you didn't use the
subexpression
>inside the square brackets of example 7?
></john>

Yes, I was having ID problems. I've fixed them and attached a signature
using the standard expression.

I now only differ on example 7, as explained above.

Merlin

Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 11:53:17 UTC