Yes thanks, I marked it as a duplicate.
Colm.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:14 PM Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> Colm,
>
> Should SANTUARIO-583 [1] also be closed or marked as a duplicate of
> SANTUARIO-593 [2]?
>
> --Sean
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANTUARIO-583
> [2]
Colm,
Should SANTUARIO-583 [1] also be closed or marked as a duplicate of
SANTUARIO-593 [2]?
--Sean
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANTUARIO-583
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANTUARIO-593
On 8/30/22 8:03 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
I support this proposal. I think the
I support this proposal. I think the "here" function was never specified
correctly anyway as I have been told a while ago by an XPath expert that
it should have been defined in a namespace in order to be properly
processed as an XPath extension.
--Sean
On 8/30/22 4:04 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh
Hi all,
I'd like to propose removing Xalan as an (optional) dependency and
also support as a result for the here() function defined in the spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#function-here
To re-cap, currently for XPath we use the default Java implementation.
Xalan is an optional
