- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:52:25 +0100
- To: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@elcel.com>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Hi Rob, r/roblugt@elcel.com/2001.05.16/14:45:05 >I see your point and believe that it needs further research. However, a >solution that would enable you to stay true to the current specification >would be to make use of the default namespace for your SOAP envelope. For >example, your signature would remain valid if you structured your document >like this:- > ><Envelope xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> > <Body> > ... > <Contract xmlns="&foo;"> > <Signature xmlns="&dsig;">...</Signature> > </Contract> > </Body> ></Envelope> > >Is this any help? In this case yes, but namespace-qualified attributes cannot use the default namespace qualifier: <x:Foo x:bar="XXX" xmlns:x=...> <!-- the bar attribute has a namespace URI --> <Foo bar="XXX" xmlns=...> <!-- the bar attribute has no namespace URI --> So it is unfortunately not a general solution. Merlin ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or appearance at trade shows and conferences. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses. http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 09:53:00 UTC