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,

>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>
>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.


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.
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