[EMAIL PROTECTED]: xml-security/xml-security failed

2004-05-28 Thread Sam Ruby
via syndicated feeds: RSS: http://brutus.apache.org:8080/gump/xml-security/xml-security/rss.xml Atom: http://brutus.apache.org:8080/gump/xml-security/xml-security/atom.xml -- Produced by Gump 2.0.3-alpha-0002. [Run (20040528 09:00:05, brutus:brutus-public:20040528 09:00:05)] http://brutus.apa

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: xml-security/xml-security failed

2004-05-28 Thread Sam Ruby
via syndicated feeds: RSS: http://brutus.apache.org:8080/gump/xml-security/xml-security/rss.xml Atom: http://brutus.apache.org:8080/gump/xml-security/xml-security/atom.xml -- Produced by Gump 2.0.3-alpha-0002. [Run (20040528 09:00:05, brutus:brutus-public:20040528 09:00:05)] http://brutus.apa

Re: AW: AW: Question on c14n exclusive

2004-05-28 Thread Berin Lautenbach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, In the current c14n implementation changing the behaviour is only a how the symb table is create(i.e. When I create the symbol table the xmlns="" binding is marked as rendered, so it is not emitted), I can parametrized this behaviour. But what happend in the excl c1

Re: AW: AW: Question on c14n exclusive

2004-05-28 Thread Berin Lautenbach
Dittmann Werner wrote: This behaviour is absolutely necessary in order that exclusive canonicalization can function correctly in the case of changes to apex definitions of the default namespace. The canonicalization specifications should both have been defined to always emit apex xmlns=""; this la

Re: AW: AW: Question on c14n exclusive

2004-05-28 Thread raul-info
> Berin, > > well I don't know if it is the same reason as for > encryption. During the discussion I also asked > one of the WSS gurus about the topic. Here is his > answer to my question: > > > This behaviour is absolutely necessary in order that exclusive > canonicalization can function correctl

AW: AW: Question on c14n exclusive

2004-05-28 Thread Dittmann Werner
Berin, well I don't know if it is the same reason as for encryption. During the discussion I also asked one of the WSS gurus about the topic. Here is his answer to my question: This behaviour is absolutely necessary in order that exclusive canonicalization can function correctly in the case of c

Re: AW: Question on c14n exclusive

2004-05-28 Thread Berin Lautenbach
Dittmann Werner wrote: * Finally, employ the canonicalization method specified as a parameter to the transform to serialize N to produce the octet stream output of this transform; but, in place of any dereferenced element Ri and its descendants, process the dereferenced node set Ri' instead. Dur