- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:07:11 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, xml-names-editor@w3.org, www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org, XML DSig <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 12:24 8/11/2000 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Mar. 8, 2000: Namespace Myths Exploded by Ronald Bourret
>http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/03/08/namespaces/index.html
"Fortunately, the resolution of this myth is unimportant, as it does not
affect how documents that use XML namespaces are written or how
namespace-aware applications process unprefixed attribute names."
So my question is the above true? This thread started when Gregor [1]
commented we need to go through our examples and interop instances and
qualify the attributes as required by the namespace spec. However, the
namespace doesn't require this (but it also states that those attributes are
not qualified). However, we can still be schema valid because our schema
uses attributeFormDefault="unqualified". However, I'm not sure of what all
the implications of this choice are which leads to the STATUS comment in the
Signature spec:
1. Ensure that our use of schema namespaces and qualifications
provides a single schema that can be used for enveloped
signatures (signature within content being signed), enveloping
signatures (content is within signature being signed) and detached
signatures (over data external to the signature document).
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmldsig-core-20000711/
If someone that understands namespaces and attributeFormDefault better than
me could make a recommendation about which path we should pursue, I'd
certainly appreciate it!
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0240.html
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 11 August 2000 14:07:14 UTC