[xmlsec] Modifications to example 2

Aleksey Sanin aleksey at aleksey.com
Fri Aug 30 12:03:11 PDT 2002

The code changes is only one part of the problem. You should also create 
new "explanations" page.
If you can do this and send me a complete code and a page (instead of 
patches) I would be happy
to insert this as "example 2" and push current numbers:   
    example 2 -> example 3,


Devin Heitmueller wrote:

>I have made a couple of modifications to example 2.  Here's my thinking:
>Based on what I read in the document on example 2, it was supposed to be
>like example 1, except it was supposed to build the signature section
>dynamically.  However, it also changed the transform algorithm from
>enveloped to C14N inclusive.  It also introduced the Reference Id.  I
>think while these concepts are worthwhile, perhaps they don't belong in
>the second example.
>For simplicity's sake, I changed the transform back to enveloped and
>removed the signature Id and URI.  This should make it easier for people
>to understand the example when comparing it's functionality to Example
>1.  It also eliminates the need for the doctype, which is something you
>may not want to introduce so early in the example set.
>I think the original Example 2 is still quite helpful, as it does
>introduce concepts not demonstrated in example 1.  I just think that in
>this case, it would be better to focus on the intended differences
>between example 1 and example 2 (to demonstrate the dynamic addition of
>the signature).  Logically, I think the new example should be 'example
>2', and the other examples should be pushed up by one (example 2 becomes
>3, 3 becomes 4).
>Attached is the patch.  Hopefully it will be of help.

More information about the xmlsec mailing list