My intention of putting "#xpointer(/1/2)" within the signature's reference was to use the shorthand form "/1/2".
Due to the xmlsec restriction xpointer expressions always have to start with "#xpointer(" or "#xmlns(",
I just injected the shorthand form into the #xpoitner(expr) statement. Unfortunately I did not know the meaning would be different.
I have adapted my tests using the longer expression "xpointer(/*[1]/*[2])" and everything is fine.
Do you see a chance (or need) of supporting the shorthand form of xpointers in xmlsec?
I am not sure if this would confilct with the possible ID attribute meaning within the URI attribute.
Thanks for effort on working out the different meanings between these statements
Matthias
Aleksey Sanin wrote:
Ok, it was quick :) According to [1] and [2], the two expressions "/1/2" and
"xpointer(/1/2)" are *not* the same! While the first one is a correct shorthand
form, the second one (full form) does select a different node set.
The equvivalent full form for "/1/2" would be "xpointer(/*[1]/*[2])". You can find
an example with some explanations in [3].
Aleksey
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/PR-xptr-framework-20021113/
[3] http://www.zvon.org/xxl/xpointer/tutorial/OutputExamples/xml27_out.xml.html
_______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
_______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
