- 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