[xmlsec] XPointer problem

Matthias Jung matthias.jung at xtradyne.com
Wed Mar 12 01:18:18 PST 2003

Ok, that clearifys a lot.
My intention of putting "#xpointer(/1/2)" within the signature's 
reference was to use the shorthand form "/1/2".
Due to the xmlsec restriction xpointer expressions always have to start 
with "#xpointer(" or "#xmlns(",
I just injected the shorthand form into the #xpoitner(expr) statement. 
Unfortunately I did not know the meaning would be different.

I have adapted my tests using the longer expression 
"xpointer(/*[1]/*[2])"  and everything is fine.
Do you see a chance (or need) of supporting the shorthand form of 
xpointers in xmlsec?
I am not sure if this would confilct with the possible ID attribute 
meaning within the URI attribute.

Thanks for effort on working out the different meanings between these 


Aleksey Sanin wrote:

> Ok, it was quick :) According to [1] and [2], the two expressions 
> "/1/2" and
> "xpointer(/1/2)" are *not* the same! While the first one is a correct 
> shorthand
> form, the second one (full form) does select a different node set.
> The equvivalent full form for "/1/2" would be "xpointer(/*[1]/*[2])". 
> You can find
> an example with some explanations in [3].
> Aleksey
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/PR-xptr-framework-20021113/
> [3] 
> http://www.zvon.org/xxl/xpointer/tutorial/OutputExamples/xml27_out.xml.html 
> _______________________________________________
> xmlsec mailing list
> xmlsec at aleksey.com
> http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec

More information about the xmlsec mailing list