- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:31:22 -0400
- To: Jochen.Schwarze@cit.de, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 12:22, Jochen.Schwarze@cit.de wrote: > 1. If runtime performance is an issue, would it also be a possibility to > integrate the XQuery activities as XML-Signature transfomations? I'm not sure how that would necessarily improve things. (It might, but I don't know.) Regardless, I'm sure someone could specific such a XML Query Filter, but we haven't yet had any need for it. > 2. If functionality like having node-set intersections and unions is an > issue, would be possible to consider additional mathematical node-set > operations for a future version of XPath? (I still consider it a > work-around having to use something like count(SET) = count(SET | > ELEMENT) to test an element-in-set relation ;-) The new operations aren't issues in and of themselves, their solutions to a previous issue and useful additions to boot. The xmldsig-filter2 shouldn't require"count" to have to appear in an XPath expression, as one can now express an eveloped signature selection as: <XPath Filter="subtract" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/04/xmldsig-filter2" xmlns:dsig="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> here()/ancestor::dsig:Signature[1] </XPath> instead of: <XPath xmlns:dsig="&dsig;"> count(ancestor-or-self::dsig:Signature | here()/ancestor::dsig:Signature[1]) > count(ancestor-or-self::dsig:Signature)</XPath>
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 14:31:25 UTC