Hi Bob,
> Definitely. Am already planning for the xpath impl to support
> everything needed by a C14N impl.
Ok. Could I help or should I try to get closer with XML Signature to build
that on top of your Canonical implementation?
> Just for clarification, is SAX-esque, not a SAX-basd xpath proc
> It makes no sence to create different solutions for one problem ;-).
Definitely. Am already planning for the xpath impl to support
everything needed by a C14N impl.
> By the way. James told me that you and he are working on a complete sax base
> xpath processor.
Just for clarification, is
Hi Bob,
> Yah, C14N tends to mostly just be an application of xpath.
>
> The part that isn't part of the XPath W3C-REC is the 'document order'
> of various things. XPath doesn't define the orderings of attributes
> or namespaces, and we have to look direclty at the C14N spec to
> find that.
> I reviewed the Canonical Spec as I read your comment and agree with you. It
> seems to me that most of Canonical Algorithm is part of XPath. Do you
> implement
> something like XML Information Set Mapping. Could you tell me what is NOT
> provided by such a XPath Impl? Following sipplet contai
Hi Bob,
> Canonical is almost trivial once full xpath (with document-ordering) is
> available. And I'm working on that aspect now...
>
> -bob
I reviewed the Canonical Spec as I read your comment and agree with you. It
seems to me that most of Canonical Algorithm is part of XPath. Do you
impl
Hi Toby
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think we should implement Canonical XML and XML Signature on top of
dom4j
> by ourself.
Agreed. Especially Canonical XML.
> Tell me what you think about this and then I starting with
> implementation tomorrow
Go for it. Maybe try implementing an CanonicalX
