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

Re: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: sean.mcgrath@p...
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:58:19 -0400
• Cc: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <417FADF5.7090001@p...>
• References: <417F8F4A.3000407@p...> <417F9905.3080400@m...> <417F9BAD.5060503@p...> <417FA999.4070608@m...> <417FADF5.7090001@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421

> XML canonicalisation. In particular, I want to avoid the complexities 
> that result from combining  XML 1.0  canonicalisation with namespaces 
> (e.g. Exclusive XML canonicalization :-)

Once you done the work of C14N, exc-c14n isn't that much more. :)

Less flippantly, I took a look at RIG2 and skimmed RIG3.  It seems like 
the combination of limitations on xmlns (not at the docroot, no 
bleed-thru, no use of alternate prefixes, etc) means that you're 
essentially outlawing the ability to use a layered SOAP implementation. 
  Was that the intent?

Also requirement 25 in RIG2 (no superfluous declarations) seems 
redundant since RIG2 already mandates RIG3.
	/r$
-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview  http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• References:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Previous by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread