Hi :)
I wish to encrypt then sign a XML document without the 'ds;' and 'xenc:'
namespaces. Unfortunately, I can only suppress on of these namespaces :| The
following code throws XmlSecurityException always on the second line
independent from its nature (EncryptionConstants.setEncryptionSpecN
The library has a bunch of #ifdef statements in there for various
aspects and will detect the version of Xerces it is working against
during the ./configure operation.
The general aim has always been to support Xerces "N" (currently 1.7)
and "N-1" (currently 1.6). So you should be fine.
Che
As far as I can see - effectively your trying to have two different
namespaces as the default namespace for the Signature element. Which
can't really be done. Or am I misreading your intent?
Why do you not want the namespaces? Both specs exist inside a specific
namespace, so you can't not u
Hmm. Brain failure. Very sorry :<.
Of course the current version is 2.7 (not 1.7).
I'm assuming you mean 2.6 rather than 1.6?
If you really do mean 1.6 then it won't work. It's been a long time
(and someone will correct me I'm sure) but 1.6 used a completed
different structure for the DOMN
Hi Berin :)
I'm using a home-made XML Encryption implementation but unfortunately I'm not
the developer of it. This implementation does not support ds: and xenc:
prefixes, so I try not to have them. In order to test interoperability of it
with well-known API, I'm trying to encrypt a XML docum
Can you post a signature from the implementation you use to see what it
looks like?
Cheers,
Berin
Eric Tournier wrote:
Hi Berin :)
I'm using a home-made XML Encryption implementation but unfortunately I'm not
the developer of it. This implementation does not support ds: and xenc:
Here are an example of signed document (HTH):
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";>
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";>
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/>
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/>
http://www.w3.org/
Hi Berin,
Yes, our server is indeed running with "1.6" :) Anyway, I will try to add
2.7 as a speparate lib as you suggested. Thanks a lot !!
Cliff
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
> Hmm. Brain failure. Very sorry :<.
>
> Of course the current version is 2.7 (not 1.7).
>
> I'm assuming you m
