Yes, there is no burning reason to carry different element names for each signature. I thought I'd need distinct names for countersignature support, but I don't believe I do. Even in that scenario, the counter-signature should arguably be over all existing signatures, etc ...
Thanks, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Aleksey Sanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 24, 2003 10:07 AM To: Edward Shallow Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [xmlsec] Emailing: EdTestFormNoMSO.zip >1) In the Pre-Digest buffer (see below) I will get extra white space >and/or CRLFs for every "subtract" I add in the transform chain. Do I >need to do another Canonicalization after the set of filters ? Can this >be expressed as a transform ? > > It's OK. You just need to remember that XML includes not only element but also text nodes. For example if you have following XML <doc> <Signature1/> <Signature2/> </doc> then you have 3 element nodes and 3 text nodes. If you remove, say, <Signature1/>, the text nodes around it stay. Thus you would have <doc> <Signature2/> </doc> If you want to remove this text node "\n " then you need to specify it in the XPath expression but actually there is no reason to do this. >2) Is there any way to do a "wildcard" type thing with the "subtract" >so I might use only a single filter instead of one for every >//SignatureN ? Like a sort of //Signature(*) or something ? > > It's an XPath expression and //dsig:Signature should do it (http://www.zvon.org/xxl/XPathTutorial/Output/example2.html) Aleksey _______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
