Re: AW: Call for Implementation: Canonical XML Becomes a W3C Candidate Recommendation

I have been using Xerces myself; a very minor patch corrects
the problem of it not applying internal doctype information to
documents in non-validating mode. Kent, if you're interested
I can send you the patch next week. I sent it to the Xerces
list a while ago but got no response.

With this patch applied, the DOM 2 ID resolution stuff works
fine. So my vote too is to leave the examples as they are.

Merlin

r/jboyer@PureEdge.com/2000.11.17/13:52:34
>Hi Kent,
>
>It is easy enough to change the examples, but the purpose of the examples is
>to show how XML can change as the result of c14n.  If one is using a
>validating parser, one is expected to be able to modify the examples to
>account for this.  It's really easy; you put DTD declarations into the
>document until it validates, and all of your DTD declarations are removed,
>so the canonical form is unchanged.
>
>So, clearly I am most interested in your troubles with the non-validating
>version of Xerces.  It certainly appears to me that Xerces does not fully
>comply with XML 1.0 if it does not read attribute types and provide them to
>the application for use.  It's DOM call may decide not to work, but even if
>you have to implement id searching yourself, the attribute type should at
>least be available for you to do this.  If not, IBM needs to do a patch for
>you.
>
>It would actually be better to get tools out there that can process the
>examples as they are than it would be to let this go and have
>non-interoperable signatures because even the major vendors don't follow the
>spec closely enough for the ever scrutinous sha-1 hash.
>
>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/>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
>[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of TAMURA Kent
>Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:39 AM
>To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
>Subject: Re: AW: Call for Implementation: Canonical XML Becomes a W3C
>Candidate Recommendation
>
>
>
>In message "RE: AW: Call for Implementation: Canonical XML Becomes a W3C
>Candidate   Recommendation"
>    on 00/11/10, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com> writes:
>> As well, your assertion that the Xerces DOM parser cannot select by id
>> unless using validation seems, on the surface, to contradict IBM's
>> interoperability report since they are most certainly using Xerces and yet
>> were able to complete example 3.7.
>>
>> Moreover, if the id() function is something you have to implement, it is
>not
>> actually very hard to implement as long as 1) the parser correctly types
>the
>> id attribute when not validating, and 2) it is easy to hook your resulting
>> id() function into the Xpath implementation that evaluates the expression
>> given in example 3.7.  Are you saying that one of these two things isn't
>> working.
>
>The Document.getElementsById() method of Xerces-J's DOM
>implementation works only with the validating parser.  while I
>tested the example 3.7, the parser output many validation
>errors.  Fortunately, the parser does not stop parsing and
>validation on a validation error.
>
>In general, a validating XML processor MAY stop parsing on a
>validation error, and a non-validating XML processor need not
>process attribute types.  We would not get correct results of
>example 3.4 and 3.7 with such XML processors.  I think example
>3.4 and 3.7 have to be modified so that they become valid
>documents.
>
>--
>TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
>

Received on Friday, 17 November 2000 17:21:37 UTC