- From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 01:10:42 +0900
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xenc <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Joseph, > >> >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 think you mean parameter entity then? > No, I mean not parameter entity but general entity, especially parsed > entity. > >This still leaves me confused: the entity part and the "effective". I'm being concerned about the use of entity references in a decrypted octet stream. If there is no information on bindings of entity name and value, such an octet stream cannot be parsed. >I expect the "parsing context" is a DOM specific term, is there >something we can reference there? I'm not sure the term is DOM-specific, but what the term intends was affected by XML Fragment [1]. >The REQUIRED 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 (as >profiled by [XML-Signature, Section 4.3.3.2]) To my understanding, "fragment identifier" can be renamed by "barename XPointer". If so, this text could be shortened as follows: The REQUIRED 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 an XPointer expression (as profiled by [XML-Signature, Section 4.3.3.2])) >and identify an enc:EncryptedData or enc:EncryptedKey element. As I commented before, identifying the enc:EncryptedKey element does not make sense because this transform does not anything for the element. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment Thanks, Takeshi IMAMURA Tokyo Research Laboratory IBM Research imamu@jp.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 11:07:39 UTC