Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed!

On Wednesday 24 April 2002 18:41, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> I note you don't define what you mean by "put this in a soap envelope".

Exactly: does anyone defines what this means? When people expressed 
concerns that Canonical XML was too "context inclusive" in scenarios like 
SOAP, it was my argument that "packaged" XML applications (those that 
compose and decompose chunks of XML betwixt documents) might need to define 
the mechanism of insertion/deletion for things like this. While the 
argument for exc-c14n was compelling none-the-less, I still believe this 
doesn't mitigate the need for some sort of specification regarding the 
creation of "synthetic infosets" if an application is doing that sort of 

> A copy and paste of XML source and an infoset-type insertion such as
> XInclude performs would give you different answers.

Right, and if folks use different mechanisms (e.g., copy/paste, XInclude 
like mechanisms, XSLT like mechanisms, DOM mechanisms) the result might 
vary regardless of what we can do with canonicalization since we are only 
operating on the "snapshot" XML instance or node-set/Infoset prior to 

>  I also note that
> the xml:base attributes in both of the above examples don't do anything
> and can be omitted from both examples without vitiating your concerns.

Yes, I was trying to do no more than demonstrate the effect; not to make 
justify the scenario -- but I expect it will arise somewhere at sometime.


Joseph Reagle Jr.       
W3C Policy Analyst      
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair
W3C XML Encryption Chair

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 12:48:54 UTC