- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:08:54 -0500
- To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xenc <xml-encryption@w3.org>
On Thursday 06 December 2001 21:09, Takeshi Imamura wrote: > Thanks. I don't see any problem on it. Ok. BTW I noticed that one of the edits remove the two parameter entities from the schema DOCTYPE: <!ENTITY % p ''> <!ENTITY % s ''>. If you provide a DOCTYPE (which permits DTD validation) than you should retain these entities as they are defined in the schema DTD itself in a way contrary to how we want our validation done. It's an odd thing I only discovered after working with schema validators, you can read more about it at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2001Feb/0145.html I've re-inserted them. > By the way, do you remember [1]? Did it answer your question? > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Nov/0040 Sorry, that email must've got away from me! On Mon, Nov 19 2001 Takeshi Imamura wrote: > >Prefix and namespace name of each namespace that is in scope for e, the > >first element node in X. [is this e different than that in > >decryptIncludedNodes? -JR] > > It may or may not be different and depends on what node-set is given as > input. For example, given the node-set created from the following > document:... Could we change the first e then? Maybe to "f" for the first element node in X? > >Name and value of each entity [is this the formal definion of entity > > from xml1.0 or something else -JR] that is effective for the XML > > document causing X. > > I'm not sure whether this is the formal definition, but what I intend is > a set of entity name and value bindings declared in a document type > declaration. I think you mean parameter entity then? http://java.sun.com/xml/jaxp/dist/1.1/docs/tutorial/glossary.html#parameter Entity > >The MANDATORY URI attribute value of the dcrpt:Except element MUST be a > >non-empty same-document URI reference [ URI] (i.e., a number sign ('#') > >character followed by a fragment identifier) or XPointer expression and > >identify an enc:EncryptedData or enc:EncryptedKey element. > > If we allow an XPointer expression, we have to define how the expression > is evaluated. We can refer to the text described in 4.3.3.3 > Same-Document URI-References of the XML Signature spec for definition, > but do you think the text is enough? Also do you think we have to > support all XPointer expressions, though XML Signature does not? > > You added to the above text the EncryptedKey element being identified. > Because this transform does nothing for the element, I believe it does > not make sense. I've lost the context for this issue. You are advocating that we remove the XPointer text, right?
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 17:08:59 UTC