Search the archive
2002
2003
2004
2005
All messages
Query hits
| Date | Subject | From | Committee | Snippet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] frustration (was RE: [xml-dev] XPath 2.0 ) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > W3C is fundamentally a large-vendor-mediating organization, and there Is that why the Web Services chairmanships went to IBM, Microsoft, and Sun? /r$ |
| 12 May 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Patent non-proliferation and disarmament [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > 1. The web would not have emerged without non-royalty > based standards. ... This is undecidable. If the inventor of the web says so, then it is decideable. For example, it is safe to assume he wouldn't have used an sgml-derived markup if it required license fees. > 2. |
| 12 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Patent non-proliferation and disarmament [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Finally, open source shall not be opposed to RAND. For instance, > in MPEG, reference softwares are open source. It is even mandatory > to provide an open source software otherwise the technology can't be > introduced within the standard. That's a free reference implementati |
| 15 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Objections to / uses of PSVI? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | I object to mandating PSVI because -- as a toolkit implementor the pain of having to implement XSD far exceeds the benefits gained. I'll try to coerce marked-up data to primitive numeric types on the fly, as needed. I don't need to parse a perl-style regexp to see how many |
| 15 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Objections to / uses of PSVI? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > One specification, containing types for the document folks (ID, > NMTOKEN), for the C-influenced folks (short, unsignedThisAndThat), for > the database folks (gHorribleKludge). You're exactly right! That's the most concise problem definition I've seen. Thanks. > Apart fro |
| 15 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Objections to / uses of PSVI? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > ASN.1 requires external schemas so that data structures can be coded. ASN.1 *is* a schema, it's not something that needs a schema, so it doesn't answer the question. /r$ |
| 15 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Objections to / uses of PSVI? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Would you be averse to something PSVI-like if it only meant returning a > much-restricted set of simple data types? It comes closer, but I'd have to think about it more before I commit my vote. :) As pointed out in other messages, no conventional programming language has na |
| 16 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Objections to / uses of PSVI? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | ASN.1 is a schema; separate standards define encodings. /r$ |
| 16 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Patent non-proliferation and disarmament [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I didn't make myself clear on a few points. I'll mention two: I wasn't worshipping Tim; I said he wouldn't have created the Web if patents got in his way. You believe someone else would have created the web? "Undecideable." Basically |
| 23 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Not that the problem is with DTDs. After all these years, it seems that > the jury has come back in and the cost-benefit ratio for entities just > ain't good. -Tim Good. A big problem with external entities are the security implications: if I send you some XML, you have |
| 30 May 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] The sky is falling! XML's dirty secret! Go back! It's a trap! [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Let me say a bit. I've been involved with security, crypto, PKI, for (too many) years. First, having the data tagged or not is not a security issue. Data thieves already *know* what they data they're looking for looks like: 123-45-6789 is probably a US social security numbe |
| 2 Jun 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] The sky is falling! XML's dirty secret! Go back! It's a trap! [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > out to be a security hole in your sshd, then you might be happy that you > didn't post the IP address for your vulnerable system on the web. Since most port scans are automated, it really doesn't matter if you publish your IP address or not. :( Passwords aren't security thro |
| 7 Jun 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] SourceForge and Zvon RFC Repository [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I have committed XML source files of Zvon RFC repository > ( http://zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC_share/Output/index.html ) > to a new Source Forge Project: > RFC-XML ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/rfc-xml/ ) Are you using the XML DTD that Marshall Rose developed? /r$ |
| 7 Jun 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | There's absolutely NO WAY that Don would have said "resistance is futile" without a wink in his eye. It's a pity the article didn't explain that while he meant the basic point, he was having fun with rhetoric. /r$ |
| 7 Jun 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Can you elaborate, please, on what is the "document style"? When SOAP is used to ship arbitrary XML documents, as opposed to the RPC encoding of Section 5. Paul Prescode: > According to the SOAP intelligensia, the > document style is the futur |
| 7 Jun 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Sure, quote me. Everything on a public mailing list is on the permanent public record, anyway. Here's another quote: REST is to RPC as XSD is to RELAX. :) /r$ |
| 9 Jun 2002 | Re: Actually, resistance is proving far from futile [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | |
| 9 Jun 2002 | Re: Actually, resistance is proving far from futile [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >But I'm just coming from XML Web Services One, and I can tell you that >all over the place, the discussion, and informal orthodoxy is that the >document style of SOAP is its future. This position came from all >quarters, not just the MS folks there, but folks from XMethods, >IB |
| 11 Jun 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > And the advantage of using "Web Services" for these applications, over > existing technologies like CORBA, DCOM or MQSeries, is what? Avoid purchase of third-party infrastructure. It's great to have common data syntax, networking protocols, why not app protocols? (Give cred |
| 12 Jun 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > protocol. That's why I'm surprised you say that SOAP/WSDL/... services > are a good idea because "It's great to have common data syntax, > networking protocols, why not app protocols?" I don't understand what > this has to do with SOAP. SOAP is not an app protocol. That's why |
| 3 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Descriptions for XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Surely that is a matter of traditions. Programming Language is > generalluy understood not to be part of the acronym for any programming > language Off the top of my head: PL/1 APL COBOL DIBOL |
| 3 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > http://www.xfront.com/REST-Web-Services.html I read through this and have a couple of questions. 1. Why isn't the reference to Roy's thesis a hyperlink? 2. Is it a REST "requirement" that submitPO returns a URI for the stored document that the submittor can later modify? |
| 4 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >>>Imagine requesting medical >>>records; because of my "only endpoints" requirement -- imposed by >>>us HIPPA regulations -- SSL will not suffice.) >> >>Could you describe how SSL fails to satisfy? > > Perhaps the HTTPS server isn't the endpoint in the sense relevant to the > |
| 4 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > REST is about integrating systems using the Web and not tunnelling them > through the Web. Please also see my followup to Miles's note. It's not just intermediaries that are the issue. /r$ |
| 4 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Rich says: "I'm legally disallowed > from having my Web gateway understand the semantics of the information > it is dealing with." I never said there HAD to be a web gateway. I'd just like to be able to send it operations where parts of the data are encrypted. REST doesn't |
| 4 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >>Ah, the crux of my problem with the REST camp. Post hoc propter hoc. > > So is it your sense that no matter how compelling a theory for why > something happened in the past, that theory should not be considered > because it can never be proved? Maybe evolution is not the caus |
| 4 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > [I'll jump in because I'm interested in understanding Rich's security > question. He's posed it to me before and I must not have understood it > then either.] That seems to be living under a separate thread, so I won't discuss it here. >>3. I don't understand the rationale f |
| 4 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Firstly REST did not come *after* the fact as you state. I was on the HTTP WG for a bit. I don't ever recall any "guiding architectural principles" being emphasized. It was all being made up as we went along, with occasional number-crunching (cf Mogul's 95SIGCOMM paper) t |
| 8 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > So encryping any fragment identifier or query fragment such that only the > target can decrypt it ought to fit in well. The encryped bit would have to > be url-escaped. > > Is that what you were thinking of? Yup. |
| 11 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] HashMap in an XML document [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | The "soapbuilders" mailing list[1], a forum for those developing (as opposed to using) SOAP toolkits, has been wrestling with common portable serializations for hashmap for awhile, now and then. You might want to look through the archives. The Apache folks have one style tha |
| 31 Jul 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Re: URIs, concrete [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | I agree that unqualifed attributes "have no namespace" is a mistake. Even though I did a double-take when I read that part of the spec, it still tripped me up in my first XML application. Unfortunately, it's not aesthetics, but the unknowably-sized matter of deployed base th |
| 31 Jul 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Re: URIs, concrete [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | If you think unqualified attributes being in "no namespace" is a mistake, then it's far better to break such documents than to change what they mean. In that way it's a compromise. If you disagree with Simon and think the current system is okay, then you'd be opposed to any c |
| 3 Aug 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Escaping URLs and URIs into valid xml names [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | The SOAP 1.2 spec has a proposal for how to turn any arbitrary name into a valid XML element name. /r$ |
| 17 Aug 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] P2P and URIs [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > > I'm still waiting for someone to show me that the Web was something > > designed and guided by REST principals (as claimed in the link above), > > How could I show you what was in Roy Fielding's head? The IETF works primarily through mailing lists, and the HTTP-WG was no d |
| 25 Aug 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Namespaces should never have been scoped. That's a big part of what > drove the implementation complexity up to such a large degree. But it's conceptually much cleaner. Who likes pascal style variable declarations at the top, isntead of local scope rules? It also makes comp |
| 26 Aug 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > The reality is that scopes are nested, and resolution is > always with respect to the innermost defining block, not the immediately > "local" block. That's an implementation detail, each local block could maintain a pointer to its inherited context. (See, implementation.) > |
| 2 Sep 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Is W3C Losing the Plot? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > The biggest problem with the W3C is the impression in industry that every > XML technology must be either a W3C technology or blessed by it. It's unclear how much W3C deserves the "blame" for that. My view is less than half. /r$ |
| 2 Sep 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] xml schema [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Absolutely; I'm sure xml.com would love to see an article on "don't fear (the) Schema". The original author did the net a service by offering use guidelines. If it's time for another set, great. /r$ |
| 14 Sep 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] [Fwd: Re: The 11-pound solution (fwd)] [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > <pontification flame-bait="true">XML is worse than ASN.1 for network protocols. > Worse is better. Deal with it.</pontification> Only in terms of serialization. In terms of other stuff -- e.g., development time, integration with Web servers, services, and architecture -- AS |
| 14 Sep 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: Re: The 11-pound solution (fwd)] [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > the application. On the other hand, ASN.1 modules are produced by human > beings, published in standards or other such, and used by the > implementers of these standards. I think that is no different, say, than any of the XML Schema languages. People concerned with the "ver |
| 15 Sep 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > before using other technologies -- if you had a reason to. All that > Distributed Services Nirvana the architecture astronauts are blathering about > was promised to us in the past, if we used DCOM, or JavaBeans, or OSF DCE, or > CORBA." (I was the OSF DCE Technical Lead. |
| 15 Sep 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > If you want to criticize Joel's perspective you should perhaps look > at the fact that his background is in platform specific , shrink wrapped > software and thus the problems distributed application developers face > have never been the same as his. That was *exactly* my po |
| 27 Sep 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re:[xml-dev] TAG on HLink) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Jeff Greif wrote: > You can imagine a single > piece of code acting as the guts of a client that can access any web service > described by WSDL. Without any knowledge of the operation's semantics? Such a thing will only be useful as a debugging tool. (Th |
| 27 Sep 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re:[xml-dev] TAG on HLink) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Without any knowledge of the operation's semantics? Such a thing will > only be useful as a debugging tool. I should have been more careful abuot editing before sending. Replace "? S" with ", s" It would, of course, be useful in scripting environments, where the script b |
| 28 Sep 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: [xml-dev] TAG on HLink) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >The WSDL provides the operation semantics Via extensions? Or what? WSDL is all about message syntax; it can't even describe if an operation is idempotent or not. /r$ |
| 2 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I think the proportion of > cases where XMLSchema validation happens at application run-time is > going to be way short of 100%. I personally think's actually going to > be way short of 25%, it's useful for design support and debugging but > it's just not at the right leve |
| 2 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > If I'm going to be accepting transactions encoded > in XML my *business* level validation is going to be doing a lot of ... Sure, if your business application has ben (re)written to understand XML and isn't, instead, legacy code fronted by an XML wrapper. My guess is that i |
| 7 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Using RDDL as a Distributed Registry Architecture [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I cetainly would not accept such an authority. I'd preffer distributed > metadata bundled with the subject resources. The problem is trust, from a security/crypto viewpoint. If you have a distributed directory (which, I agree, is basically what you want), handling trust becom |
| 8 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Using RDDL as a Distributed Registry Architecture [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Many people feel otherwise. They feel that the centralization degrades > security because it erects a single point to attack and introduces a > third-party into transactions that would otherwise only involve two. If A and B have already got a trust path, then sure it's only tw |
| 8 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Using RDDL as a Distributed Registry Architecture [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > crashing to a halt the way that the death of DNS would. How would you accomplish the "death of DNS"? Bring down all 13 root servers? Sure, a major registrar could go down, but the DNS data itself is distributed so it's a reasonably simple matter to resurrect from the zone fi |
| 8 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Using RDDL as a Distributed Registry Architecture [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > The search engine is the trusted third party. But in the decentralized > design, you do not depend upon it any more than you have to. And how much do *you* think you have to depend on it? If you are trusting the directory to give you all the data about a particular resource - |
| 9 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] heritage (was Re: [xml-dev] SGML on the Web) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I'm sure that practical experience quickly showed the > SOAP people that anything that gets defined in a DTD is an interoperability > sink once a message leaves its source. There are a couple of reasons why SOAP doesn't allow DTD's. First, a majority of the original authors |
| 15 Oct 2002 | [security-services] Re: [wss] Canonicalization [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | security-services | Hm.. Is this an accurate summary? If the data being signed is going to be enclosed in another envelope, such as SOAP, then XML Exclusive C14N should be used. We should encourage SAML to use XML EXCL C14N. /r$ |
| 15 Oct 2002 | Re: [wss] Canonicalization [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | Hm.. Is this an accurate summary? If the data being signed is going to be enclosed in another envelope, such as SOAP, then XML Exclusive C14N should be used. We should encourage SAML to use XML EXCL C14N. /r$ |
| 16 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Namespaces [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > On (c) I suspect many people would say "drop namespaces altogether". In favor of what? Clearly we need some kind of distributed naming scheme for elements and attributes. /r$ |
| 17 Oct 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | I said: > Clearly we need some kind of distributed naming > scheme for elements and attributes. Len replied: > Actually, someone might want to make that case clearly. > That would be illuminating. It seems to me that as soon as you are using multiple XML documents or facilities |
| 22 Oct 2002 | Re: [wss] WSS Issue#1: Support for carrying PKCS7 Encryption Payloadsin SOAP Message [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > A complete XML only version of CMS is being progressed in X9, X9.96 XML > Cryptographic Message Syntax (XCMS). This work should be completed by end > of first quarter next year. How do you see the future of XCMS compared and contrasted to XML DSIG/XML-Encryption? Are vendors |
| 23 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars! [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Can anyone recommend a good Learn Python Text with focus on the > Functional aspect? David Mertz had a series of columns in IBM developerWorks about this. The Python whitespace issue really becomes a non-issue by the end of your first day. :) /r$ |
| 23 Oct 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] What is XML For? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > XML is data, not objects. Understand this for it is the zen of XML. But Master, what is an object over the wire but data? /r$ |
| 23 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] What is XML For? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | All the issues you mentioned are good ones. I wouldn't call any of them show-stoppers, since it seems to me the same issues come up with persistence and that works well enough to get real work done. /r$ |
| 24 Oct 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] What is XML For? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Objects are not data - they are a proprietary/binary representation > of data that need 'object-interpreters' on both ends. Proprietary? No thanks. Binary? I'll sacrifice a few IP packets for interop anytime. > And the wire > may not be a wire - it might be a message bus w |
| 24 Oct 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] What is XML For? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > It's perhaps best to start with a definition of 'object' and try to work > back from there to XML. Too hard. Too political. I've no intention of going through the COM, Corba (and what the heck -- throw in Java/RMI and OODCE) wars again. XML is data. Okay, sure, great, fin |
| 24 Oct 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] What is XML For? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Yes, okay. But where's the type system, the defined functional operators, > the logic interpreter? They're probably all going to be implicitly assumed > by the receiver Sure. Just as the "business logic" processor receiving any XML document is assumed, too. Again, I said " |
| 27 Oct 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] XInclude: security risk 1 [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Once a local user has loaded this into a web browser from behind the > firewall, the original host site or some other remote site can easily > determine whether some document exists on some server that would not > normally be accessible to it. Interesting idea. It would be ea |
| 3 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Character Entities: An XML Core WG View [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Mike Champion wrote: > I think lots of other syntaxes that > are more compressed/encrypted, or more user-friendly, or legacy/proprietary, > or more theoretically understood (LISP comes to mind) will also be > widely used to exchange these data model thingies a |
| 14 Nov 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] Microsoft on XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Sigh. Read the charter, read some messages, get an idea of what the list is like before posting. You wouldn't jump into a conversation in real life without first being sure you know what people were talking about, would you? As Dare and others will be among the first to tell y |
| 15 Nov 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] more QName madness [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > >Sadly, my prediction that no-one would ever use XML Namespaces because > >the whole idea was so unworkable is one of many occasions on which I I don't think I understand what the alternative is. Is it this? Element names don't matter but it can have multiple xmlns:type |
| 15 Nov 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Empowering You wrote: > I think Microsoft's greatest benefit to mankind is that because they are > so large and able to spend so much money on R&D, some of the things they > push are well thought out and standards have arisen where before there > were only s |
| 15 Nov 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] more QName madness [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Me? I'm not trying to throw out anything. I'm trying to understand what the throwers (e.g., Michael Kay) prefer. I agree that a QNAME datatype is a mistake, because it's useless without context. /r$ |
| 15 Nov 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] more QName madness [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Could you explain this piece a bit more? I'm not sure what you > were suggesting: > > Element names don't matter but it can have multiple xmlns:type > > attributes that have URI(s) describing the element? I'm probably hopelessly confused, but I thought this is what some |
| 18 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] OT - Re: [xml-dev] The perils of P18S (was Re: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard ) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > what *is* the algorithm for generating these things for phrases or > hyphenated words? If you look at the first time this happened, "internationalization", you see that it you replace the middle 'n' letters with the number, getting I18N. Blame/praise to posix committee member |
| 20 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] canonical xml [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | In the crypto world, canonicalization (C14N) doesn't mean "the ONLY way" to write something, but "a STANDARD way" to write something. I don't know what tutorial you read, but the phrase you quoted is misleading. There are several types of canonicalization: the "standard" (or |
| 22 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] General Public License for DTD and Schema [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I'm using the term GPL generically. That's a mistake. It will only cause confusion and ill-will. sure, you can call it whatever you want, but GPL really means the Gnu Public Licnese to "everyone." /r$ |
| 22 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] General Public License for DTD and Schema [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Rich Salz wrote: > > sure, you can call it whatever you want, but GPL really means the Gnu > > Public Licnese to "everyone." > > yeah? > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL The fact that the FSF uses the term GNU GPL doesn't, as you agree, make m |
| 22 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG] [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Disagreement is abuse? Are we reading the same mailing list? Andrew, someone heavily involved with a topic says your logic is wrong, your understanding naive. Perhaps if you want to improve your position, you'd accept the feedback. /r$ |
| 22 Nov 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Excellent IETF BCP on XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > "XML mechanisms that follow external references (External References) may also > expose an implementation to various threats by causing the implementation to > access external resources automatically. > Hmm. So namespacesCumURLs are a securit |
| 4 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | I hope the following is conrete enough. Imagine the following element: <pi>3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899 </pi> (See http://www.joyofpi.com/pi.htm for details). Suppose you are building a web services front-end to Macsyma |
| 4 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Well, there's a problem you will encounter earlier. Float and double are > restricted to 32 and 64 bits respectively: Only in their value space, not their lexical space. My example -- with and without the type attribute -- is legit. And shows the problem. /r$ |
| 5 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Paranoia and Slippery Slopes (was Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Dare Obasanjo wrote: > Thousands of developers using Microsoft technologies benefit from viewing XML > as strongly typed data. Users of the .NET Framework DataSet, ASP.NET web services > and SQLXML all utilize XML as strongly typed data. However these people are rarely > mar |
| 5 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Paranoia and Slippery Slopes (was Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Dare Obasanjo wrote: > I have no idea what "doc/lit" means let alone it being the party line at Microsoft. Sorry, WSDL shorthand. document/literal style, as in XML documents as XML documents, not XML as object serializaton. > I must have missed that memo. I guess so; perhap |
| 5 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Paranoia and Slippery Slopes (was Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Dare Obasanjo wrote: > My bad. You're one of those people who thinks > > XML == Web Services No I'm not. And you raised the issue first by talking about typed data and devstudio. :) /r$ |
| 6 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Typing and paranoia [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | The infoset doesn't claim to be XML; it claims to be an information model that might be useful to other specs. The only thing that claims to be XML is the serialization document. Anything more than this is "trademark infringement." :) /r$ |
| 17 Dec 2002 | RE: [xml-dev] nested namespaces [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Unh, okay, it's boneheaded to wrap an XML document in a messaging wrapper when not doing the messaging. Those wacky blogger kids think it'll help 'em, so be it. /r$ |
| 19 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >>reflect the reality that I repeatedly hear about: one can make significant >>optimizations in an implementation if there is some understanding that >>there will be no entities to expand. > > > What are these optimizations? If you know that you only have to do < and |
| 19 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > It is not clear to me that it would be any faster, since it involves branches > that would never be taken if the data contained no user-defined entities. You're probably a better coder than I am, but if I have "&f;" expanding to "foobar", and I want to implement in-place conv |
| 19 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Only benchmarking/profiling can tell It's hard to beat this: int expand_entities_in_text_node(char* buff, int size) { char *start, *src; for (start = src = buff; --size >= 0; ) { if ((*buff++ = *src++) == '&') { if (size >= 3 |
| 20 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Well, assuming SAX-style parsing that is: just deliver entity expansions > as a separate characters() callback ... no copies or writes needed at > all. The intent was to show in-place expansion can be way efficient. |
| 20 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Except that it doesn't show that, because every entity expansion > involves copying the following text forward. Since you have to look at the char, copying it back would go through the mem cache. I figured that was cheaper than saying (if buf != src) first. Of course, the who |
| 20 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Here is a version of Rich's C code that is exactly the same speed-efficiency if there > are no entity references, and no less space-efficient if there are entity > references. If we find a non-built-in reference, we replace the > & delimiter with the Unicode Object Replacement |
| 22 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >For the case of internal entities, the text can still be all in a single buffer >in my suggestion shows. I was trying to point out that the claims that >supporting (internal) entity references for documents that normally won't >have entity references *must* cause significant in |
| 22 Dec 2002 | Re: [xml-dev] Internal entities removed from XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > The argument in the thread is whether supporting entities but not using > them must cause show-stopping space or time degradation compared to > not supporting entities, as was claimed. (And, more than that, the > claim that supporting internal entities requires multiple buffer |
| 6 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] S-expressions vs. XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > You don't have an isomorphism yet, since the range > of g (hence the domain of f) is only a subset of all > S-expressions over atoms and strings. But that's fixable. I knew I shouldn't have deleted the first part of my message. I believe most folks are being sloppy. They do |
| 12 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Famous web services with apparent serious XML schema errors [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > What was intended was something functionally equivalent to this > <xsd:complexType name="AuthorArray"> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name="Author" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexContent> > apparently using |
| 12 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Famous web services with apparent serious XML schema errors [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > But surely it's not supposed to be incorrect with respect to the schema > that's used to specify how these results are supposed to look? Are you > forbidden from validating SOAP 1.1 content against a schema? There are things expressible in SOAP RPC encoding (section 5 of SOAP |
| 15 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] namespace URI references [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Does anyone know of XML namespace URI references that include fragment > identifiers? The XML DSIG namespace uri is an empty fragment: http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldisg# This is kind of cute. When they need URI's for things within that spec (for example, to specify the |
| 17 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > laws. So where it might have been "the right thing to do", now it > is a business loss to do because licensing is more profitable than > paying out to create specifications for competitors to build to. Or it might be a business win because now we'll get 10% of a $bn market |
| 17 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > We know that RF has worked in a set of limited cases and > mostly for core technologies or loss leaders. This stuff can be spun all sorts of ways, of course. We know that it's worked for the web so far. > We don't know if RAND limits customer choice. Sure we do. If ope |
| 17 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Yep. I am in total agreement with that except they > specify technologies and call those standards. It's a > quibble but one I have to repeat. I'm a lot happier > when private consortia specify technologies and then > these technologies by |
| 18 Jan 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > You can implement it, yes; you can't change the design > or adapt the specification. I can write up a document that says "here's a set of diffs to the PDF spec" and shop it around to get someone to stamp "standard" on my specification. Of course, I'm not likely to be successfu |
| 19 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] ConciseXML arguments [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > It _could_ be suitable for ALL applications. Is the Water compiler/interpreter written in water? Would you want to write a window manager, operating system, or database in Water? Assuming the answer to at least some of the above is no, then perhaps you want to restate your g |
| 23 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Writing Encrypted XML to a File [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >I have to create an encrypted string using DSA and attach the resulting >encrypted string as an element in an XML document ... >How do I encode the encrypted string so that I can create a valid XML file >to be parsed back sucessfully ? base64 encode your ciphertext. you should |
| 23 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] many-to-many [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >If we dispose of the inconvenient fiction >of a "Resource", most of the metaphysical hooey >surrounding URIs goes away. I'd like to watch you try, if only so I could watch the heads of Fielding and the rest of the REST camp explode. /r$ |
| 24 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] many-to-many [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > With REST at one end (where a Resource is some paraphenomenal > abstract thing you can never get your hands on), RDF at > the other (where a Resource is anything Identified by a URI > and a URI is anything that Identifies a Resource) ... So, do you think the authors of the URI |
| 24 Jan 2003 | Re: [saml-dev] Resolving SAML and XML DSIG schemas when validatingSAML Assertio ns instances [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | saml-dev | > In our SAML processing implementation we prefer that we > handle schema resolutions (for SAML Assertions as well as XML DSIG > elements) from a local copy of their standard schema. However, we > prefer altering the SAML schema w.r.t. removing the attribute > 'schemaLocation' s |
| 24 Jan 2003 | Re: [wss] TC for Policy in support of WSS and other activities [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > We are offering to host such a meeting at our Burlington, MA. campus, > and propose that the meeting occur on Wednesday Feb 12, 2003. Datapower is very interested in this TC, and if this date (or more importantly locale) holds, we'll bring one or two people to the kickoff. |
| 27 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Re: Binary Encoding using Base64 [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > contrary to the Base64 encoding spec, Microsoft embeds <cr><lf> characters > in the output. What spec says linebreaks are not allowed in base64? /r$ |
| 27 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Re: Binary Encoding using Base64 [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > RFC 2045, page 23: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt Please turn to the next page: The encoded output stream must be represented in lines of no more than 76 characters each. All line breaks or other characters not found in Table 1 must be ignored by decodin |
| 27 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Re: Binary Encoding using Base64 [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Alessandro Triglia wrote: I misled Bill; my quote is from page 26 not page 23. Section 6.8 of RFC 2045 says >>> The encoded output stream must be represented in lines of no more >>> than 76 characters each. All line breaks or other characters not >>> found in Table 1 m |
| 30 Jan 2003 | RE: [wss] Web Services Security Username Token Profile [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > I guess I'd prefer to see RSA with SHA-1 required and RSA with MD5 > allowed. I don't think making DSA a requirement is particularly realistic, > just some politics. Strongly agree; XML-DSIG got it exactly backwards. /r$ |
| 31 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > ERH has a thought provoking comment on his weblog today > http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ > The security community detests SOAP/XML-RPC/Web Services because they > violate fundamental network security principles. Hunh? I'd like to know the basis for this claim. /r$ |
| 31 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Cavnar-Johnson, John wrote: > Probably something along these lines: > http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0006.html Oh, *that* piece. Sometimes Bruce stretches to make his points, as in: That's right. Those pesky firewalls prevent applications from sending commands t |
| 31 Jan 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Consider these two examples; > > POST some-uri HTTP/1.0 > Content-Type: application/xml > [blank line] > <number>3<number> > > and > > POST some-uri HTTP/1.0 > Content-Type: application/xml > [blank line] > <add> > <number>3<number> > </add> In the first example, the action |
| 1 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Are There URIs in Heaven? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > But didn't God REST on the seventh day, and said it was good? Not quite; he looked on what he had done, saw it was good, and RESTed. In other words: REST after the real work happened. :) /r$ |
| 2 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > [WS folks] chose XML, and they have > concommitantly also chosen to " violate the fundamental design of XML". It's > that simple. And what parts of the fundamental design are being violated? DTD's? It seems to me that saying WS don't |
| 2 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I didn't say anything about whether or not it's an excellent tradeoff for WS > folks. I have several times said that I am not interested in that subthread. I think it's a good thing for (yes, I mean this) the whole world. Just like ASCII and TCP/IP and MIME, in their day, win |
| 3 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Sorry I offended. My nose has been rubbed in it and like a good little puppy I'll go whimper in the corner now. Please forgive the heresy; my copy of the recommdnation didn't come on tablets. /r$ |
| 3 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] poisoned markup [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | So, you're pissed off that someone took your simplified markup tool and used it for other things? And now you have to explain that (a) you don't want the rococo specs others are building; and (b) somehow the WS PR affects your ability to get work done? Gutenberg probably felt t |
| 3 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] poisoned markup [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > On > the other hand, there's plenty of reason for those of us who do care > about markup to detest those who just care about serialization - and to > fight back when possible. Wow. This is one of the few time I find myself looking forward to Monday morning in the hopes it wil |
| 4 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] XML parser bencmark to compare .NET parser and Java parser? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Unfortunately the .NET SDK > license agreement prohibits reporting the results of any benchmark > testing without Microsoft's prior written approval What a crock of s--t. NY just got a ruling against someone (Oracle?) for just this sort of thing. Anyone there want to try it? |
| 4 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | How much of the problem "XML needs to be compressed" is solved by just using GZIP transfer encoding over HTTP? /r$ |
| 7 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Urgent !! [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Dealing with > ASN.1 is a good way to increase your appreciation for XML -Tim Just to be pedantic: I assume you really mean "some binary encoding of ASN.1" (DER or BER, for example). ASN.1 itself is just the data language. If the Infoset were written in terms of ASN.1 many |
| 7 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Urgent !! [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | >>some data, basically records. I have to convert this ASN1 file into an XML >>file. This is an ongoing procedure. I have the DTD which i have to conform >>to. What i am looking for is some utility which will use the asn file and >>the DTD as input and give an XML file as output |
| 10 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > The world is obviously desiring a protocol for application development that > sits above the TCP/UDP layer; HTTP is being positioned for that because it's > the nearest thing to hand. BEEP. A real application protocol designed by someone who knows networking. /r$ |
| 10 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > DNS was based on a "proper protocol", ONC RPC. That's a new one to me -- what makes you say that? (I don't even think you can express DNS packets in XDR, but I could be wrong there.) > There is *VERY* little value in standardizing on a layer 6 protocol > (note to Rich; BEEP |
| 10 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Best way to represent fractional values? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Joe, Hugh wants to implement rational numbers, not decimal numbers. It is slightly surprising that XSD doesn't have such a datatype. This must have come up before; perhaps asking in the xml schema comments list, see what someone else has done. /r$ |
| 11 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] patent application (MSFT) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d= > PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030028685'.PGNR > ..&OS=DN/20030028685&RS=DN/20030028685 Interesting. I thought that if you knocked out an independant claim (such as #1 in the ex |
| 12 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I'm impressed by the fact that neither the interviewer nor the > interviewer seem to be able to tell the difference between strong vs. > weak typing and static vs. dynamic typing. Did you miss the part where Guido called it run-time typing, and pointed out that everything *is |
| 13 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Richard Tobin wrote: > The only weak-typing constructs [in C] are pointer casts ... You're confusing implementation and spec. :) A compiler is allowed to do "real work" when casting between pointers types. The only guarantee is that you can cast to (void* |
| 20 Feb 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] Remembering the original XML vision [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Data fusion is a given in my view so I forget to mention it > explicitly when I talk about why having XML Everywhere is so > cool. With most documents on my file system, data in my database, > web documents and messages on the wire exposable as XML infosets > in a few years [if |
| 24 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] XML for RFCs [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > There used to be a company (which I can no longer find; XML and RFC gets far > too many matches in Google) who were paying students to mark up RFCs into > their XML structure. Marshall Rose's Invisible Worlds. Or MappaMundi, or one of those ventures of him and Carl Malamud. |
| 25 Feb 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Agreed. However API designers especially those that would like to enable > the implementation of virtual XML documents and XML views are better > served by basing their work on the infoset than on the XML 1.0 syntax. Only if they don't give a crap about portability. There is |
| 25 Feb 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > If the SOAP specification is built on the infoset, > is a syntax-subset necessary? The SOAP processing model (i.e., what you do with a message, what its semantics are, etc) is described in terms of the XML Infoset. The only defined binding of a SOAP message is XML over HTTP. |
| 25 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xm l-dev] The subsetting has begun) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > o The Disconnect: Why should SOAP request a subset > of the syntax if SOAP is described in terms of an infoset? There are two parts to SOAP: how messages are transported between SOAP nodes (the various transport bindings), and how you process the parsed Infoset-based |
| 25 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > And, as a result, [ASN.1] offers poor interoperability relative to good old > Unicode-with-angle-brackets. (My personal experience, yours may vary). The entire public-key infrastructure (PKI) is built around ASN.1 and the DER encoding. Oh wait, maybe you're right. /r$ |
| 27 Feb 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] The supersetting has begun [Was Re: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP] [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > How, then, can one keep the Infoset model consistent without > encountering these drawbacks? Mu |
| 1 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Registered Namespace prefixes [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | ICANN has been using IANA for extortion, in particular trying to force the country-code folks to sign up. For whatever reason, the US govt put out a notice saying "unless we get complaints, we're just gonna give ICANN continued control of IANA." Fortunately, folks noticed, and |
| 7 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Registered namespace prefixes [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > If you're going to report an element and its attributes and attribute > values as separate events, it means jumping back and forth. When I feed C++ to my C parser, it doesn't work too well. :) XML requires you to look ahead to the end of the start-element. Yes this makes some |
| 8 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Registered namespace prefixes [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Thanks for the detailed response. Pity there doesn't seem to leverage DNS, so that I don't need to deal with yet more red tape. /r$ |
| 10 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Use of XML for representing Corporate Data Model. [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | From www.xbrl.org : eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) brings the publication, exchange, and analysis of the complex financial information in corporate business reports into the dynamic and interactive realm of the internet. XBRL provides a common |
| 12 Mar 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] FW: Tim Bray "Let's Move XML-DEV" [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Perhaps someone should ask OASIS if xml-dev is also moving to the new mail and content facility. If so, all problems might just vanish. It is interesting that it's the big guns that got dropped, not plebes like me. :) /r$ |
| 12 Mar 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] FW: Tim Bray "Let's Move XML-DEV" [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I'd really like to know why it does it. In my experience, network outages lead to bounces, and "n" bounces lead to list expulsion. I've had timeouts trying to send email to textuality.com, e.g. > Spooky behavior from a computer is a bug > gone undiagnosed. Distributed syste |
| 13 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Moving the list [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Why don't we find out what it is that is going > wrong with the listserver first? Give the technical > guy assigned to the task a bit of time to figure > out the problem. +1. It appears this is the first time the issue's been raised to OASIS |
| 18 Mar 2003 | Re: saml-dev RE: [saml-dev] Question about the base64 encoding inBrowser/POST profile [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | saml-dev | > The questions I have are about base64 and whether any of that is > affected by character encoding. No, it's just arbitrary bytes to base64; it doesn't know if it's UTF8, UTF16, Shift-JIS, gb-xxxx, etc. I believe the problem is that the SAML schema doesn't allow you to say |
| 19 Mar 2003 | Re: Encrypting a password [thread] [month] | (200) | wss | I was asked to forward this if I agree. I agree so I'm forwarding. :) From: Mike Burati Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: RE: [wss] Encrypting a password Sorry for jumping in as a non-voting observer, but I have a couple comments... I agree with Hal's concerns |
| 25 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] XPointer goes to REC [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > This further says that W3C is politically motivated and is not a true > standards body but one where commercial interests of the insiders are put > ahead of the standards process - Do you know of any standards organization where this isn't true? > that one person > says this |
| 26 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] XPointer goes to REC [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > > > This further says that W3C is politically motivated and is not a true > > > standards body but one where commercial interests of the insiders are put > > > ahead of the standards process - > > > > Do you know of any standards organization where this isn't true? > > This is |
| 29 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] GXA specifications process [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > BEA recently released 3 "WS-X" specifications, one of which > (WS-Acknowledgement) addresses reliable messaging: Can they do that? I thought IBM/MSFT owned WS-xxx. no, seriously. /r$ PS to all: removing mail trailers when replying is nice. |
| 31 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > sort of like ebXML then? or any SOAP implementation with the payload > separate from the envelope. ebXML is "just" an application use of SOAP with Attachments -- multipart MIME where the first part is the SOAP message. (I put "just" in quotes, because it does build a somewhat |
| 31 Mar 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > SOAP 1.2 Message Normalization became a W3C Note [1] on 3/28/03. From > the abstract: Check out the acknowledgements. :) |
| 1 Apr 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > On that thread somwhere would be my wishing that Simon would some day find it > in his heart to port his experientations to Python :-) Yes, please! (That Java stuff is a fad...) |
| 1 Apr 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] XML's Scylla and Charybdis - parse and regexp [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Dare Obasanjo wrote: > As far as I'm concerned there is an XML data model. > It's currently specced by the W3C and is named the XQuery & XPath 2.0 data model. Unh, then why didn't they call it "The XML Data Model" ? Until they do, it's rather unfortunate that Redmond gravitat |
| 1 Apr 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Interpreter for a subset of Knuth's MMIX in pure XSLT [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > As an exercise in XSLT programming, we in Propylon have implemented a > MMIX Interperter (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/mmix.html) > in pure XSLT. That's way cool. Shouldn't the output method be text? Who's up for benchmarking ... /r$ |
| 5 Apr 2003 | Base 64 and URL-encoding [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | security-services | Base64 turns 3 bytes into 4, and adds 0-3 trailing equal signs as padding characters, which would expland to %3D in URL encoding. Except for the equal signs, Base64 output is [A-Za-z0-9/+] URL Encoding turns "special" bytes into the three-character sequence %nn where nn are two |
| 8 Apr 2003 | Re: [wss] Agenda for tomorrow's call (4/8/2003) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | Sorry, regrets, sales meeting. :( |
| 17 Apr 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] The Zen of xml-dev [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > BTW what is a koan? A little non-logic brain-buster for you to think about while meditating. The canonical example probably being "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" /r$ |
| 18 Apr 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] Reply-to munging [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Automatically always setting Reply-To makes it awkward or at times difficult to reply to an individual. Mistakes ("sorry, meant to be a private reply") are costly to the entire list membership. Without Reply-To, it's easy to reply to poster, and trivially different (what, the S |
| 19 Apr 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] From grammar based file to xml file [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I have a bunch of program config files with sentences based on a > grammar. The files and the grammar were written to be used with the yacc > parser. Now I have to port the code from c to python, so I'd like to > rewrite these config files as xml to parse them with xml python s |
| 19 Apr 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] What is the data here? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > It is that combination of data and its proprietary data container that I am > suggesting is de facto "jointly owned". Why stop there? What about the pixels on the screen, the electrons on the disk, and the bits flowing through the network card? Does Cisco get a claim on my p |
| 23 Apr 2003 | mailing list for ws-security users? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | We've gotten a couple of requests, and I didn't know the answer. Does anyone know of any mailing lists for WSS/WS-Security users, as opposed to implementors or spec-writers? Sort of like xsl-list hosted by Mullberry... Replies to me will be summarized for the list, thanks. |
| 26 Apr 2003 | RE: [wss] WSS: Non-Repudiation Proposal [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > Experience from the PKIX group has taught me that calling > any specification 'Non Repudiation' is inadvisable. +1 |
| 1 May 2003 | Re: [wss] Issue 46 [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | Hal Lockhart wrote: > I tracked down the quote listed for issue 46. It is from a response from > Rich Salz to Dave Orchard about Dave's request that the WSS spec specify > WSDL extensions for WSS. Since the TC agreed not to take this up, I believe > this issue can be closed. Fin |
| 5 May 2003 | RE: [dss] Requester Identity (was RE: [dss] requirements draft 4) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | dss | > I think that we should think twice before introducing yet another name > structure beyond those already used. Yes! |
| 7 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > > >The concept is this: authentication of not only a user for access >control to a resource, but a combination of the user *and* a resource - > This is called delegation. System A is an active participant -- it is a security entity of its own. User1 authenticates to A and "d |
| 7 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > > >That works well from the perspective of A (the sender side) because it >asserts that A has the proper claims to access B (this appears to me to >be more of a "push" method). But what if B does not consider A to be a >valid user? How can B enforce this? > > In delegation, t |
| 7 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > > >>Authenticating a user for access to particular data only within a given >>context means authenticating that user only for someone else's preconception >>or prejudice regarding how that data is to be used or processed. The effect of >>such discrimination is to prevent the un |
| 7 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] DIME - Status? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Thanks Dare - this is for an article that I am writing. Unless you reply > to the contrary, I will consider the current status and future direction > of DIME and WS-Attachments as "uncertain", and communicate it as such in > the article. I'd go further than that. One of the s |
| 8 May 2003 | RE: [pki-tc] PLEASE REVIEW the draft PKI Obstacles survey [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | pki-tc | > From a marketing guy's perspective, I think a more traditional expression of > "obstacles" would be "inhibitors" -- and prior to asking about inhibitors, > there should be a question that asks about "drivers". At OSF DCE we often used the phrase "barriers to deployment" as I'm |
| 8 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > If I may ask, without I hope sounding too petulant: For what it's worth, I found your prose rather hard to get through. (Well, you *did* open the line of questioning... :) > What does this cartelization (with a rigidity of rules, permissions, and > hopelessly intertwined pro |
| 8 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > 2) Create a cartel of like-minded businesses, based upon agreed uses of data >interchanged, from which each party can assure itself that a requester of data has a >need-to-know which the supplier of that data considers legitimate. This is the model >for which Messrs. Chiusan |
| 9 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Fri, 9 May 2003, W. E. Perry wrote: > --systems publish their output in a form retrievable by, paradigmatically, > an http GET. So how does the college healthcare system determine if the URL -- my medical records -- should be given to the client? /r$ |
| 9 May 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > I didn't see the beginning of this thread ... I suggest you skim the archives to see the previous couple posts on this thread by Mr. Perry. My question was socratic; I'm trying to figure out where authentication fits into his brand new world. /r$ |
| 9 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control") [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > For particular purposes on a particular occasion and expert > process ('Joe' in our ongoing example) should access sources from which it > is authorized to retrieve I can feel the breeze from the handwave way over here. HOW is this authorization and authentication done? Joe d |
| 9 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] SALT Transaction Protocol [was: Blended Authentication (AKA "Granular Access Control")] [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Okay, so let me summarize this thread. An initial question about multi-party authentication got some answers. It also got bogged down into a side discussion about how "old school" the architecture must be. In order to learn how to do security in the bright and shiny new world |
| 11 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Tutorials need to be written based on final documents. Nah, they don't need to lag more than one draft. Tutorials are also very useful for showing how to "wrap your head around" something, functioning almost as a rationale at time. /r$ -- Rich Salz Chie |
| 13 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] What are the characteristics of a good type system for XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | Amelia A.Lewis wrote: > From my perspective: the base type is xmlstring, a sequence of a subset > of unicode characters (excluding C1, C0 except HT CR LF, the character > '<', and the character '&' except as the start of an escape sequence). > Base type validation is equivalent |
| 14 May 2003 | RE: [xml-dev] What are the characteristics of a good type system for XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Watching the same mistake repeat itself on > XML-DEV even with the hindsight provided by W3C XML Schema is oddly like > watching a train wreck in slo mo. So young, so cynical. Another way to look at it: taking another shot at the problem, because the current "solution" doesn |
| 15 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | [email protected] wrote: > http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0513.murphy.html Bah. Reverse-engineering XML is a heckuva lot easier than reverse-engineering the current MSWord, etc., formats. And by definition then, XSLT can be made to clean it up however you want. My conc |
| 16 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] What are the characteristics of a good type system for XML? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | On Thu, 15 May 2003, Bob Foster wrote: > Do you have an example of two durations that can't be ordered by > normalization? Unless I misunderstand, P1M and P30D, for example. How many days in a month? Or do you mean something else? /r$ -- Rich Salz |
| 19 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Why Standards? [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > A goodly portion of the internet was > built on de facto standards, *not* de jure standards dictated by standards > bodies. Not sure what you mean by this, but the following were all created out of thin air by IETF working groups consisting of multiple individuals: IP, |
| 23 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Syntax + object model [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Maybe 5 years to late, but I never really understood the argument about why > a standardized syntax is better than a standardized object model. It sounds > right, but I can't explain why. A standard syntax enables communication between separate components. A standard object |
| 24 May 2003 | RE: Re: [xml-dev] Syntax + object model [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Dare, I do not think you can say that XPath data model is the standard > data model for all applications. I know you have done work on querying XML > Schemas using XPath etc. Dare is speaking for the approach being taken by his employer. (Not in an official capacity, of cours |
| 24 May 2003 | RE: Re: [xml-dev] Syntax + object model [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > As far as MSFT is concerned, the XPath data model is the XML data model, > and it is the garden path down which MSFT applications will need > developers. Typo, "lead developers." Although it scans either way, I suppose. :) /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security |
| 27 May 2003 | [COOL] Google architecture [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | http://www.computer.org/micro/mi2003/m2022.pdf The google cluster architecture. cool. -- Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html |
| 27 May 2003 | SOAP Header [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | security-services | Suppose I wish to add SAML assertions to a soap message as it passes through my processor. What's the common method to do that -- just put the saml:Assertion element as the SOAP header itself: SOAP:Envelope SOAP:Header SAML:Assertion .... Or are folks already wrappi |
| 29 May 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | james anderson wrote: > does soap permit you to atleast annotate the Body element with additional > namespace declarations? yes. /r$ -- Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower. |
| 4 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] W3C Voting (Was: XML Catalogs finished?) [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > For my education, what is the W3C voting procedure? From http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs : The W3C "Recommendation track" is the process that W3C follows to build consensus around a Web technology, both within W3C and in the Web community as a wh |
| 6 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] standardization: bumps in the road [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > (W3C and Oasis) and two that as a practical matter > have as much clout as anyone (IBM & MS). That makes > four. It's three. Ever since the publication of this paper http://www.w3.org/2001/03/WSWS-popa/paper51 Armonk and Redmond speak with one voice. In case of conflict |
| 9 Jun 2003 | Re: XUL [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | [email protected] (Gerald Bauer) writes: > For example, Luxor doesn't support Mozilla's XUL >specific template syntax using <template> tags; >instead Luxor lets you use Apache Velocity, XSL/T or >Jelly. Luxor doesn't force you to use RDF for >datamodels but lets you use XML+XPat |
| 9 Jun 2003 | Re: XUL [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | [email protected] (Gerald Bauer) writes: > For example, Luxor doesn't support Mozilla's XUL >specific template syntax using <template> tags; >instead Luxor lets you use Apache Velocity, XSL/T or >Jelly. Luxor doesn't force you to use RDF for >datamodels but lets you use XML+XPat |
| 17 Jun 2003 | RE: [wss] New Issue: Key Identifiers Should Not Be Used for Signatures [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > Specifically, we were given to understand that the Key Identifier generated > by Microsoft and used in the Interop depends only on the value of the Public > Key in the Certificate. Although, its value appears in the certificate in > the SubjectKeyIdentifier extension, presumabl |
| 17 Jun 2003 | Re: [wss] New Issue: Key Identifiers Should Not Be Used for Signatures [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > The problem is that the Relying Party has know way of knowing how many > certificates the sender has. Yes. > At a minumum I would say this makes the spec > totally useless for non-repudiation purposes and even doubtful for ordinary > Authorization. I don't see it. Are you |
| 17 Jun 2003 | Re: [wss] New Issue: Key Identifiers Should Not Be Used for Signatures [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | wss | > The CMS approach works provided CAs use a different serial number in every > certificate they issue. Re-using serial numbers makes them non-conformant, doesn't it? /r$ -- Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower |
| 18 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] RSS Question [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > A general question. Can RSS feeds be set up > for closed list subscribers and is the security > good enough to support that? RSS is (almost always) just sent over HTTP, so it's really an HTTP server issue. Nothing architectural in RSS about access control, etc. That said |
| 18 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > So back to Joe's question - a real world case where a list of > indistinguishable items is bound by some specific and precise number > other than 0 or 1. Number of kids on my soccer team. League rules require between 7 and 14. Airline passenger manifest, between 0 and max ai |
| 19 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Even in a case like that, somewhere you or software would have to decide > what to do in case there were more records than the form could hold. That > cannot be done with the information in the schema anyway. So why bother > putting the constraint into the schema in the first |
| 19 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > Perhaps we really mean that features which give schema developers a > meaningless sense of control are dangerous. But that's the arrogance. Sure, for every use-case someone posts, someone can post a counter-example. That doesn't make the uses less useful. The more the infra |
| 19 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > It's hubris to say that "because I want this goddamn feature, you're all > going to have it too." Touche'. To me it fits in the 80 part of 80/20, but maybe my viewpoint is too narrow. Game over. /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security Architect DataPower Technolog |
| 19 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Create XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > XML output is almost always more complex than you think at any given time. > I'm sure that even having written a lot of XML output code, I haven't > exhausted the realm of potential gotchas. That's disappointing. Developers should feel safe and comfortable generating XML with |
| 20 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Create XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > It's safest to treat > as special too, because of the bare possibility > of ]]> in character content. Only if they have the CDATA start, right? > And of course attribute values need ' or ". Only if the attribute value needs both quotes, which I put into the not-oft |
| 20 Jun 2003 | Re: [xml-dev] Create XML [thread] [month] | Rich Salz (200) | xml-dev | > No. It's illegal to have ]]> anywhere in character content except at Dang, you're right. oops. > True, although I think it's simpler to just pick one quotation style > and escape a single character rather than trying to be clever about > using the "correct" quotation mark i |