RE: [security-services] RE: Comments on XML signature guidelines draft

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> I think this is worth considering, particularly since it 
> still avoids the use of the original slow XPath transform. It 
> seems like we have to either avoid optional pieces of the 
> spec and use the original XPath transform, or pick which 
> optional piece to use, an XPointer Reference or an XPath2 Transform.

Correction: I see now that even the original XPath transform is not a
MUST. So it would seem (unless I'm missing something) that without #id
support in SAML, there is no way to implement the necessary transform or
reference *at all* without using some optional piece of the
specification, be it XPath, XPath2, or XPointer references.

> If we can get a sense of the implementations around and 
> whether XPointer support is common, that might help decide 
> the question.

For further reference in answering this question:
http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html

-- Scott