RE: Clarifying XPath Filtering Transform text (pertains to Action-350, etc.) from Scott Cantor on 2009-09-10 (public-xmlsec@w3.org from September 2009)

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:23:50 -0400
To: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Cc: "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02d301ca3222$514b59d0$f3e20d70$@2@osu.edu>

Ed Simon wrote on 2009-09-09:
> I believe we still need to clarify what happens, or should happen,
> with the following results (adapted from my linked post mentioned
> above) from the XPath Filter 2 Transform:
> 
> For example, what is the prescribed
> treatment of the following examples of node sets returned by an XPath
> Filter 2 Transform in order to produce a hashable octet stream?:
> 
> * a node set containing an attribute node;
> 
> * a node set containing a text node; and
> 
> * a node set containing all the above plus an element node.

These clarifications would pertain to the c14n specs, right? I believe the signature spec says that you always use an implicit c14n transform if the output is a node set and the next step requires an octet stream, so the text you're looking for would be a clarification to the c14n specs.

Since they currently are written with respect to taking a "node set" as input, what's the misleading aspect you're trying to clarify?

-- Scott

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 14:24:33 UTC