- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:32:49 -0500
- To: <hirsch@zolera.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
On Friday 11 January 2002 13:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > I'm missing something obvious in the sibling discussion. Ah, ok! I knew my mind would finally dislodge: I got a start on a different thread but still knew it wasn't going in the right direction... > The XML after decryption produced in the example is > <root>text inside root<!--afasd--><?sfd d sdf kjghkds ?></root> > > to me that looks valid: character data, comment, PI , since the chardata > is 0 or 1 in the production: > content ::= CharData? ((element | Reference | CDSect | PI | > Comment) CharData?)* Actually, this is not well-formed. To be well-formed it has to match the document production (rule 1 [1]). We are using rule 43 for content (which actually has the term "balanced" associated with it from the XML Fragment Interchange spec [2]). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-document [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xml-fragment-20010212 The text now reads (new revision: 1.105): ( Note: If the Type is "content" the plaintext resulting from decryption may not be well formed if (a) the original plaintext was not well formed (e.g., PCDATA by itself is not well formed), or (b) the EncryptedData element was the root element of a document that was decrypted.)
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 14:33:07 UTC