[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: canonicalization

• To: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@n...>
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 19:53:25 -0400
• Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l..., w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w...
• In-reply-to: <59083497.1025564093@crypto>

At 10:54 PM 7/1/2002 +0200, Christian Geuer-Pollmann wrote:
>Hi Simon,
>hi Elliotte,
>
>I've seen the summary on the XInclude discussion on [1] where you all talk 
>about the fact/'problem' that Canonical XML does not resolve XIncludes.
>
>Just a comment on that it's not a problem for XML Signature [2]: XML 
>Signature has the concept of transforms. If XInclude is important for you 
>and you want to sign an 'expanded' document, simply specify an XInclude 
>transform which does what you need (just a little bit out of context of 
>the reference):

Could be nice, but to be honest, none of the tools I use resolve XInclude, 
so I simply regard them as dangerous annoyances.  As I don't use XML 
Signature at this point, its ability to deal with XInclude in ways that go 
beyond Canonical XML's understanding does very little good for me at present.

Because Canonical XML doesn't require resolution of XIncludes by itself, I 
can't simply demand "Canonical XML" and expect to get XInclude-processed 
XML, so Canonical XML remains a nice theoretical but generally useless spec 
so far as I am concerned.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Prev by Date: Few doubts!!
• Next by Date: Re: From JTree to DOM or XML
• Previous by thread: Few doubts!!
• Next by thread: Re: From JTree to DOM or XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread