W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: signature portability / C14N / inherited namespaces

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
Message-Id: <20010516135225.8A11444A86@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:04 UTC