Re: [xml] XML-Signature

[Aleksey Sanin <aleksey aleksey com>]

TJ,

Thanks for info. I looked at both packages and it does not seem that 
Canonical XML based on libxml should take a lot of time. Almost 
everything could be done via "copy/paste" from libxml tree.c file.
And it does not look like I will need gdome for this (probably I am 
wrong). I am going to implement this in next few days. 
Daniel, will you be interested in including XML canonization into 
libxml library?


Aleksey.


> Hi,

> I began writing a Perl library for XML-Signature, based on XML::GDOME,
> which is based on gdome2 and libxml.  It took me longer than expected,
> and my company ended up using the Apache Java XML Signature package 
> instead.  However, I did manage to release a working Canonical XML module, 
> an important part of the XML Signature standard:
> http://www.tjmather.com/xml-canonical/
> I also have (un-completed) part of the Signature Perl module sitting on my
> hard drive.  If anybody is interested, let me know and I
'll e-mail it.

> XML-Signature is a complicated standard, and it took many months with
> a sponsored full-time developer to develop the Apache Java library.
> To develop XML-Signature in C based on libxml probably would probably take
> a similar amount of time.  Doing it in Perl would take significantly less 
> time, especially since XML::Canonical is already available.

> To make development faster, and to make it easy to switch between
> Apache XML Java Signature and Perl XML Signature, I followed the 
> implementation of the Apache XML package as closely as possible.  This
> required that I have a Level 2 DOM package, which is why I used gdome2.

> If you do go down the route of writing XML-Signature in C/C++, that would 
> be helpful, than many languages could use the standard through the
> use of a wrapper.  I would suggest following the Apache XML implementation
> and usin
g gdome2 to provide the DOM.

> -TJ