Hello, Thanks, Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vishal Mahajan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 2004/02/22 09:27 Subject: Re: going from signing xml file with DTD to signing xml file with Schema
> We can probably use the following approach for cascading the namespace > attributes and at the same time not modifying the original document -- > > 1) Let X be the element selected for signing/verification. > 2) Find the set of namespaces attributes that need to be added to X by > traversing up the tree starting from X (till we reach the document element). > 3) Clone X to get Y. > 4) Add the above computed (Step 2) set of attributes to Y. > 4) Cascade namespace attributes down the Y tree. > 5) Use Y for all future operations. > > This can be implemented without making too many major changes to the > code (I can volunteer for this). The only drawback that I see with this > approach is the expense of the clone operation. > > Any comments on this? > > Regards, > > Vishal > > Berin Lautenbach wrote: > > > Jozef Aerts - Comp.Chem.Cons. - XML4Pharma wrote: > > > >> Dear Berin, > >> > >> Many thanks. > >> Does the cascading down HAVE to happen ? Or can it be avoided ? > > > > > > As I understand it (and maybe someone else can comment here!) - yes it > > does. > > > > The C++ library bypasses this by keeping a record of the cascaded > > namespace attributes and then removing them after canonicalisation, > > but that hasn't been built into the Java library (yet... :>). > > > >> > >> If it cannot be avoided, is there a way to "uncascade" it after > >> signing, or at verification time ? > > > > > > Not that I am aware of. > > > >> > >> Unfortunately, the code from "the code below" was missing in your > >> mail. Could you send it to me ? > > > > > > Apologies - I meant your code (it was originally "below" when I quoted > > :>.) SO the question was - are you trying to validate a previously > > signed document that you have now added the schema attribute to, or > > are you signing a "schema document" and then the validation is > > failing? If the former, then the validation *should* fail. If the > > latter, then the validation should succeed, so we need to track down > > the problem. > > > > >
