Re: [ubl-security] UBL-XAdES-Profile 1.0-RC1

[Andrea Caccia <andrea.caccia@studiocaccia.com>]

Il giorno 12/ago/2010, alle ore 17.39, G. Ken Holman ha scritto:

> At 2010-08-11 17:14 -0400, I wrote:
>> (9) - line 502:  I still *strongly* disagree with labelling the XPath address you have on lines 504-506 with the XPath Recommendation URI because the "here()" function is *not* part of XPath ... but you've seen my other posts about this ... I will try later today to find another example of a signature application that uses this combination of address and URI ... it just seems so *wrong* to me (but perhaps because I was the founding chairman of the XSLT/XPath Conformance Committee and no-one else is going to care, so it could just be me and I accept that ... I'll just keep looking for justification *not* to use it as you have)
> 
> I am prepared now to stand down on my objection to this.  I note that the digital signature committee itself is ambiguous in this regard:  it cites XPath when it uses a valid XPath address, but it doesn't cite anything when it uses the invalid XPath address:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-XPath
> 
> So, if the committee got it wrong in the first place, I see no way we can do it more correctly (if I've understood the situation) and still be considered "conformant".
> 

I think you got the point. The only workable solution we found was to put XMLDSIG as normative and XPath informative so he former prevails (with related issues) and we are conformant with all XML signature implementations.

Andrea