Scott Cantor wrote:
>
>> Aside from the embarrassment though, it remains the case that the
>> serializer does not need the assistance of setAttributeNS; it does this
>> job itself.
>
> There's no such thing as "the serializer". There are hundreds of things
> called "serializers". DOM3 includes an LS interface that includes "a
> serializer", but that's just one example.
>
> Every serializer has its own properties and behaviors, usually close to
> undocumented, so relying on that isn't robust.
>
> Furthermore, signing takes place in many cases over a DOM, not a
> serialized document. It is not tenable to create the DOM, serialize it,
> parse it back in, and then sign it. So you have to ensure namespace
> correctness in the DOM itself using your own code (or a toolkit designed
> to address that).
>
> The point is, you can't punt this in the manner you described. You may
> find that insane, but I find that most people conclude that about XML
> pretty quickly.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
Granted that it's insane (and I appreciate your opinion about this) is it
*documented* insanity, or is it defined by implementation? From my limited
reading, it seems to be a very grey area. The c14n documentation doesn't
mention the DOM at all, but there may be some documentation on the DOM side
that I'm unaware of.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Undeclared-namespace-prefix-%22ds%22-error-tp19668706p19830062.html
Sent from the Apache XML - Security - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
