[OASIS Issue Tracker] (BDXR-27) XHE 1.0 uses only relative namespace URIs

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/BDXR-27?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=77827#comment-77827 ] 

Ken Holman commented on BDXR-27:
--------------------------------

In fact I know only why and how the XHE namespaces are relative: so as not to bias either OASIS or CEFACT with an absolute URI based in one of the two organizations. Now that CEFACT is not using our schemas, but only our document model, I see no barrier to using OASIS absolute URI strings, though we would need consensus of the entire XHE development team and not just the OASIS members.

As for why relative URIs impact canonicalization, I cannot fathom why this would be true. Because namespace URI strings are just that ... strings ... namespace URI strings are not URIs. So why would the lexical format of a string have any bearing on c14n?

> XHE 1.0 uses only relative namespace URIs
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: BDXR-27
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/BDXR-27
>             Project: OASIS Business Document Exchange (BDXR) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: XML Schema
>            Reporter: Philip Helger
>            Priority: Major
>
> The namespace URI of the XHE 1.0 scheme is currently
> {{oasis-cefact-xhe-1.0-ExchangeHeaderEnvelope}}
> Also aggregate components ({{oasis-cefact-xhe-1.0-AggregateComponents}}), basic components ({{oasis-cefact-xhe-1.0-BasicComponents}}) etc. use relative XML schemas.
> Unfortunately relative namespace can cause problems when using XMLDsig with the [http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#] algorithm.
> [~gkholman] has the details on the why and how :)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.3#803004)