On 22/6/05 1:39 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One would also have to contend with the potential problems >> introduced by namespace declarations with the feed. The bottom line >> of this is that an entry with a signature could not simply be copied >> over to a new containing feed element with the signature in tact >> making the aggregator scenario unworkable. > > Again, fully disagree. It is quite reasonable to pass along signed > entries without changing them. I think the problem is with clashing xmlns prefixes. Consider these two separate feeds containing signed entries: ---------------------------------------------------------------- <feed xml:ns1="http://example.com/"; ...> [...] <entry> [...] <Signature ... /> <ns1:example-element>foo!</ns1:example-element> </entry> </feed> <feed xml:ns1="http://foo.com/"; ...> [...] <entry> [...] <Signature ... /> <ns1:foo-element>foo!</ns1:foo-element> </entry> </feed> ---------------------------------------------------------------- The problem is the xmlns prefix "ns1" is used for two different namespaces. Question: is the <entry> element itself included in the signature? If not, then we can declare the xmlns:ns1 on the <entry> element ... but we'd also need to disallow any extension or foreign attributes on the <entry> (and <feed>) elements. e.
