Re: Additional note: vanishing attribute namespace prefixes

[Sean Mullan <Se...@Sun.COM>]

Have you included a decryption Transform?: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-decrypt

--Sean

Andrej Konkow wrote:
> Hi there,
>  
> I'm new to this kind of discussion but would like to respond to a 
> message and point out another problem.
>  
> the solution you have described is not practicable from my point of view.
> I have the following problem: We have evaluated the XML-Security package 
> in combination with Apache Axis.
> Everything is fine. Signing->Verifying, Encryption->Decryption.
> But: When I make the following  Signing->Encryption  and on the other 
> side Decryption->Verification  then
> the verification will fail, as the namespaces are no more included. 
> There's no possibility for me to include the namespaces
> in the way you described as we just handle the incoming messages. 
> Currently I have no solution. Do you?
>  
> regards,
>  
> Andrej
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> From: Mikolaj Habryn <dichro-xml-security <at> rcpt.to>
> Subject: Re: vanishing attribute namespace prefixes (resend)
> Newsgroups: gmane.text.xml.security.devel
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:37:00 +1000
>  
> On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 18:42, Raul Benito wrote:
>> 
> rootElement.setAttributeNS("http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance","NS1:schemaLocation","urn:frog
>>  http://xml.rcpt.to/mikolaj/default");
>> 
> rootElement.setAttributeNS(XMLNS_URI,"xmlns:NS1","http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance");
>>  I think your problems will be vanished.
>  
> You are, of course, absolutely right.
>  
> For the benefit of any future searching of the list archives, the
> sequence to get this right appears to be:
>  
> a = doc.createElement(localNamespace, prefix + ":" + tag);
> a.setAttributeNS(xmlnsNamespace, "xmlns:" + prefix, localNamespace);
> a.setAttributeNS(xmlnsNamespace, "xmlns:xsi", xmlschemaNamespace);
> a.setAttributeNS(xmlschemaNamespace, "xsi:schemaLocation",
> "localNamespace path-to-schema");
>  
> I hope to one day understand why it takes four lines to achieve a
> construct that seems so fundamental.
>  
> m.
>  
> PS: ...and I see that my original post has now made it through. My
> thanks to the moderators.
>  
> 
>