[1] RFC 3023 と RFC 2679 の差分, そしてその和訳。 詳しくは ..// 参照。
The XML Recommendation, in sectionSection 4.3.3,of [XML] specifies thatUTF-16XML MIME entities in the charset "utf-16" MUSTmustbegin with a byte order mark (BOM), which isthe ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE character,a hexadecimal octet sequence0xFEFF0xFE 0xFF (or0xFFFE0xFF 0xFE, depending on endian). The XML Recommendation further states that the BOM is an encoding signature, and is not part of either the markup or the character data of the XML document.
Due to the presence of the BOM, applicationswhichthat convertthe UTF-16 encodingXML from "utf-16" toanothera non-Unicode encodingSHOULDMUST strip the BOM before conversion. Similarly, when converting from another encoding intoUTF-16"utf-16", the BOMSHOULDMUST be added after conversion is complete.
In addition to the charset "utf-16", [RFC2781] introduces "utf-16le" (little endian) and "utf-16be" (big endian) as well. The BOM is prohibited for these charsets. When an XML MIME entity is encoded in "utf-16le" or "utf-16be", it MUST NOT begin with the BOM but SHOULD contain an encoding declaration. Conversion from "utf-16" to "utf- 16be" or "utf-16le" and conversion in the other direction MUST strip or add the BOM, respectively.
Section 4.1 of [RFC2396] notes that the semantics of a fragment identifier (the part of a URI after a "#") is a property of the data resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type of the retrieval result.
RFC 2396 の4.1節は、素片識別子 (URI の
# の後の部分) の意味は取出し動作の結果得られるデータの特性であり、
素片識別子の書式と解釈は取出し結果の媒体型に依存すると注記しています。
As of today, no established specifications define identifiers for XML media types. However, a working draft published by W3C, namely "XML Pointer Language (XPointer)", attempts to define fragment identifiers for text/xml and application/xml. The current specification for XPointer is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr.
現在のところ、 XML 媒体型の識別しを定義する仕様書として確立されたものはありません。
しかし、 W3C は XML 指示子言語 (XPointer)
という作業原案を発表しており、 text/xml
と application/xml の素片識別子を定義しようとしています。
XPointer の最新の仕様書は <http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr>
から入手できます。
Section 5.1 of [RFC2396] specifies that the semantics of a relative URI reference embedded in a MIME entity is dependent on the base URI. The base URI is either (1) the base URI embedded in the MIME entity, (2) the base URI of the encapsulating MIME entity, (3) the URI used to retrieve the MIME entity, or (4) the application-dependent default base URI, where (1) has the highest precedence. [RFC2396] further specifies that the mechanism for embedding the base URI is dependent on the media type.
As of today, no established specifications define mechanisms for embedding the base URI in XML MIME entities. However, a Proposed Recommendation published by W3C, namely "XML Base", attempts to define such a mechanism for text/xml, application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-external-parsed-entity. The current specification for XML Base is available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase>.
This document recommends the use of a naming convention (a suffix of '+xml') for identifying XML-based MIME media types, whatever their particular content may represent. This allows the use of generic XML processors and technologies on a wide variety of different XML document types at a minimum cost, using existing frameworks for media type registration.
Although the use of a suffix was not considered as part of the original MIME architecture, this choice is considered to provide the most functionality with the least potential for interoperability problems or lack of future extensibility. The alternatives to the ' +xml' suffix and the reason for its selection are described in Appendix A.
As XML development continues, new XML document types are appearing rapidly. Many of these XML document types would benefit from the identification possibilities of a more specific MIME media type than text/xml or application/xml can provide, and it is likely that many new media types for XML-based document types will be registered in the near and ongoing future.
While the benefits of specific MIME types for particular types of XML documents are significant, all XML documents share common structures and syntax that make possible common processing.
Some areas where 'generic' processing is useful include:
o Browsing - An XML browser can display any XML document with a
provided [CSS] or [XSLT] style sheet, whatever the vocabulary of
that document. o Editing - Any XML editor can read, modify, and save any XML
document. o Fragment identification - XPointers (work in progress) can work
with any XML document, whatever vocabulary it uses and whether or
not it uses XPointer for its own fragment identification. o Hypertext linking - XLink (work in progress) hypertext linking is
designed to connect any XML documents, regardless of vocabulary. o Searching - XML-oriented search engines, web crawlers, agents, and
query tools should be able to read XML documents and extract the
names and content of elements and attributes even if the tools are
ignorant of the particular vocabulary used for elements and
attributes. o Storage - XML-oriented storage systems, which keep XML documents
internally in a parsed form, should similarly be able to process,
store, and recreate any XML document. o Well-formedness and validity checking - An XML processor can
confirm that any XML document is well-formed and that it is valid
(i.e., conforms to its declared DTD or Schema).When a new media type is introduced for an XML-based format, the name of the media type SHOULD end with '+xml'. This convention will allow applications that can process XML generically to detect that the MIME entity is supposed to be an XML document, verify this assumption by invoking some XML processor, and then process the XML document accordingly. Applications may match for types that represent XML MIME entities by comparing the subtype to the pattern '*/*+xml'. (Of course, 4 of the 5 media types defined in this document -- text/xml, application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-external-parsed-entity -- also represent XML MIME entities while not conforming to the '*/*+xml' pattern.)
NOTE: Section 14.1 of HTTP[RFC2616] does not support Accept
headers of the form "Accept: */*+xml" and so this header MUST NOT
be used in this way. Instead, content negotiation[RFC2703] could
potentially be used if an XML-based MIME type were needed.XML generic processing is not always appropriate for XML-based media types. For example, authors of some such media types may wish that the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are specifically designed to deal with that media type. By NOT following the naming convention '+xml', such media types can avoid XML-generic processing. Since generic processing will be useful in many cases, however -- including in some situations that are difficult to predict ahead of time -- those registering media types SHOULD use the '+xml' convention unless they have a particularly compelling reason not to.
The registration process for these media types is described in [RFC2048]. The registrar for the IETF tree will encourage new XML- based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow this guideline. Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this convention in order to ensure maximum interoperability of their XML-based documents. Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent XML MIME entities MUST NOT be allowed to register with a '+xml' suffix.
Registrations for new XML-based media types under the top-level type "text" SHOULD, in specifying the charset parameter and encoding considerations, define them as: "Same as [charset parameter / encoding considerations] of text/xml as specified in RFC 3023."
Registrations for new XML-based media types under top-level types other than "text" SHOULD, in specifying the charset parameter and encoding considerations, define them as: "Same as [charset parameter / encoding considerations] of application/xml as specified in RFC 3023."
The use of the charset parameter is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED, since this information can be used by XML processors to determine authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity.
These registrations SHOULD specify that the XML-based media type being registered has all of the security considerations described in RFC 3023 plus any additional considerations specific to that media type. >These registrations SHOULD also make reference to RFC 3023 in specifying magic numbers, fragment identifiers, base URIs, and use of the BOM. >These registrations MAY reference the text/xml registration in RFC 3023 in specifying interoperability considerations, if these considerations are not overridden by issues specific to that media type.
The examples below give the value of the MIME Content-type
MIMEheader and the XML declaration (which includes the encoding declaration) inside the XML MIME entity. For UTF-16 examples, the Byte Order Mark character is denoted as "{BOM}", and the XML declaration is assumed to come at the beginning of the XML MIME entity, immediately following the BOM. Note that other MIME headers may be present, and the XML MIME entity may contain other data in addition to the XML declaration; the examples focus on the Content-type header and the encoding declaration for clarity.
Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
This is the recommended charset value for use with text/xml. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processorsmustMUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded.
If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP[RFC0821] ), the XML MIME entitymustMUST use a content-transfer-encoding of either quoted-printable or base64. For an 8-bit clean transport (e.g.,ESMTP,8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP), or a binary clean transport (e.g., HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.
Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-16"
{BOM}<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16'?>or
{BOM}<?xml version='1.0'?>This is possible only when the XML MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP, which uses a MIME-like mechanism and is a binary-clean protocol, hence does not perform CR and LF transformations and allows NUL octets.
This differs from typical text MIME type processing (see section 19.4.1 of HTTP 1.1 [RFC-2068] for details).As described in [RFC2781], the UTF-16 family MUST NOT be used with media types under the top-level type "text" except over HTTP (see section 19.4.1 of [RFC2616] for details).Since HTTP is binary clean, no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.
Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-16be"
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16be'?>
Observe that the BOM does not exist. This is again possible only when the XML MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP.
Content-type: text/xml; charset="iso-2022-kr"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding='iso-2022-kr'?>
This example shows text/xml with a Korean charset (e.g., Hangul) encoded following the specification in DEL[-1557]. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processorsmustMUST treat the enclosed entity as encoded per[RFC-1557]RFC 1557.
Since ISO-2022-KR has been defined to use only 7 bits of data, no content-transfer-encoding is necessary with any transport.
Content-type: text/xml
{BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?>or
{BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?>This example shows text/xml with the charset parameter omitted. In this case, MIME and XML processorsmustMUST assume the charset is "us-ascii", the default charset value for text media types specified in DEL[-2046]. The default of "us-ascii" holds even if the text/xml entity is transported using HTTP.
Omitting the charset parameter is NOT RECOMMENDED for text/xml. For example, even if the contents of the XML MIME entity are UTF-16 or UTF-8, or the XML MIME entity has an explicit encoding declaration, XML and MIME processorsmust[MUST assume the charset is "us-ascii".
Content-type: application/xml; charset="utf-16"
{BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?>or
{BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?>This is a recommended charset value for use with application/xml. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processorsmustMUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16 encoded.
If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP) or an 8-bit clean transport (e.g.,ESMTP,8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP), the XML MIME entitymustMUST be encoded in quoted-printable or base64. For a binary clean transport (e.g., HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.
8.7 Application/xml with UTF-16BE Charset
Content-type: application/xml; charset="utf-16be"
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16be'?>
Observe that the BOM does not exist. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16BE encoded.
Content-type: application/xml; charset="iso-2022-kr"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-2022-kr"?>
This example shows application/xml with a Korean charset (e.g., Hangul) encoded following the specification in DEL[-1557]. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processorsmustMUST treat the enclosed entity as encoded per[RFC-1557]RFC 1557, independent of whether the XML MIME entity has an internal encoding declaration (this example does show such a declaration, which agrees with the charset parameter).
Since ISO-2022-KR has been defined to use only 7 bits of data, no content-transfer-encoding is necessary with any transport.
Content-type: application/xml
{BOM}<?xml version='1.0' encoding="utf-16"?>or
{BOM}<?xml version='1.0'?>For this example, the XML MIME entity begins with a BOM. Since the charset has been omitted, a conforming XML processor follows the requirements of DEL[REC-XML], section 4.3.3. Specifically, the XML processor reads the BOM, and thus knows deterministically that the charsetencodingis UTF-16.
An XML-unaware MIME processorshouldSHOULD make no assumptions about the charset of the XML MIME entity.
Content-type: application/xml
<?xml version='1.0'?>
In this example, the charset parameter has been omitted, and there is no BOM. Since there is no BOM, the XML processor follows the requirements in section 4.3.3 of [XML] , and optionally applies the mechanism described in Appendix F (which is non-normative) of DEL[REC-XML] to determine the charset encoding of UTF-8. The XML MIME entity does not contain an encoding declaration, but since the encoding is UTF-8, this is still a conforming XML MIME entity.
An XML-unaware MIME processorshouldSHOULD make no assumptions about the charset of the XML MIME entity.
Content-type: application/xml
<?xml version='1.0' encoding="ISO-10646-UCS-4"?>
<?xml version='1.0' encoding="iso-10646-ucs-4"?>
In this example, the charset parameter has been omitted, and there is no BOM. However, the XML MIME entity does have an encoding declaration inside the XML MIME entity that specifies the entity's charset. Following the requirements in section 4.3.3 of [XML] , and optionally applying the mechanism described in Appendix F (non- normative) of DEL[REC-XML], the XML processor determines the charset of the XML MIME entity (in this example, UCS-4).
An XML-unaware MIME processorshouldSHOULD make no assumptions about the charset of the XML MIME entity.
8.12 Text/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-8 Charset
Content-type: text/xml-external-parsed-entity; charset="utf-8"
<?xml encoding="utf-8"?>
This is the recommended charset value for use with text/xml- external-parsed-entity. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded.
If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP), the XML MIME entity MUST use a content-transfer-encoding of either quoted-printable or base64. For an 8-bit clean transport (e.g., 8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP), or a binary clean transport (e.g., HTTP) no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.
Content-type: application/xml-external-parsed-entity;
charset="utf-16"
{BOM}<?xml encoding="utf-16"?>or
または
{BOM}<?xml?>編注: Errata <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html> で削除されました。
This is a recommended charset value for use with application/xml-external-parsed-entity. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16 encoded.
これは application/xml-external-parsed-entity
で使う推奨 charset 値です。 charset
引数がしていされていますから、 MIME 及び XML
の処理系は囲まれている実体が UTF-16 で符号化されたものとして扱わなければなりません。
If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP) or an 8-bit clean transport (e.g., 8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP), the XML MIME entity MUST be encoded in quoted-printable or base64. For a binary clean transport (e.g., HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.
7ビット転送路 (たとえば SMTP)
または8-bit clean転送路
(たとえば 8BITMIME ESMTP や NNTP)
を使って送るときには、 XML MIME 実体は quoted-printable
又は base64 で符号化しなければなりません。
binary clean転送路 (たとえば HTTP)
では、content transfer encodingは不要です。
Content-type: application/xml-external-parsed-entity;
charset="utf-16be"<?xml encoding="utf-16be"?>
Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16BE encoded.
Content-type: application/xml-dtd; charset="utf-8"
<?xml encoding="utf-8"?>
Charset "utf-8" is a recommended charset value for use with application/xml-dtd. Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded.
Content-type: application/mathml+xml
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
MathML documents are XML documents whose content describes mathematical information, as defined by [MathML]. As a format based on XML, MathML documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix convention in their MIME content-type identifier. However, no content type has yet been registered for MathML and so this media type should not be used until such registration has been completed.
Content-type: application/xslt+xml
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSLT) documents are XML documents whose content describes stylesheets for other XML documents, as defined by [XSLT]. As a format based on XML, XSLT documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix convention in their MIME content-type identifier. However, no content type has yet been registered for XSLT and so this media type should not be used until such registration has been completed.
Content-type: application/rdf+xml
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
RDF documents identified using this MIME type are XML documents whose content describes metadata, as defined by [RDF]. As a format based on XML, RDF documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix convention in their MIME content-type identifier. However, no content type has yet been registered for RDF and so this media type should not be used until such registration has been completed.
Content-type: image/svg+xml
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) documents are XML documents whose content describes graphical information, as defined by [SVG]. As a format based on XML, SVG documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix convention in their MIME content-type identifier. However, no content type has yet been registered for SVG and so this media type should not be used until such registration has been completed.
Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
Since the charset parameter is provided in the Content-Type header, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded. That is, the "iso-8859-1" encoding MUST be ignored.
Processors generating XML MIME entities MUST NOT label conflicting charset information between the MIME Content-Type and the XML declaration.
As described in Section 7, this document updates the [RFC2048] registration process for XML-based MIME types.
XML, as a subset of SGML, has all of the same security considerations as specified in DEL[-1874]
, and likely more, due to its expected ubiquitous deployment.
To paraphrase section 3 of[RFC-1874]RFC 1874, XML MIME entities contain information to be parsed and processed by the recipient's XML system. These entities may contain and such systems may permit explicit system level commands to be executed while processing the data. To the extent that an XML system will execute arbitrary command strings, recipients of XML MIME entities may be a risk. In general, it may be possible to specify commands that perform unauthorized file operations or make changes to the display processor's environment that affect subsequent operations.
In general, any information stored outside of the direct control of the user -- including CSS style sheets, XSL transformations, entity declarations, and DTDs -- can be a source of insecurity, by either obvious or subtle means. For example, a tiny "whiteout attack" modification made to a "master" style sheet could make words in critical locations disappear in user documents, without directly modifying the user document or the stylesheet it references. Thus, the security of any XML document is vitally dependent on all of the documents recursively referenced by that document.
The entity lists and DTDs for XHTML 1.0[XHTML], for instance, are likely to be a commonly used set of information. Many developers will use and trust them, few of whom will know much about the level of security on the W3C's servers, or on any similarly trusted repository.
The simplest attack involves adding declarations that break validation. Adding extraneous declarations to a list of character entities can effectively "break the contract" used by documents. A tiny change that produces a fatal error in a DTD could halt XML processing on a large scale. Extraneous declarations are fairly obvious, but more sophisticated tricks, like changing attributes from being optional to required, can be difficult to track down. Perhaps the most dangerous option available to crackers is redefining default values for attributes: e.g., if developers have relied on defaulted attributes for security, a relatively small change might expose enormous quantities of information.
Apart from the structural possibilities, another option, "entity spoofing," can be used to insert text into documents, vandalizing and perhaps conveying an unintended message. Because XML 1.0 permits multiple entity declarations, and the first declaration takes precedence, it's possible to insert malicious content where an entity is used, such as by inserting the full text of Winnie the Pooh in every occurrence of —.
Use of the digital signatures work currently underway by the xmldsig working group may eventually ameliorate the dangers of referencing external documents not under one's own control.
Use of XML is expected to be varied, and widespread. XML is under scrutiny by a wide range of communities for use as a common syntax for community-specific metadata. For example, the Dublin Core[RFC2413] group is using XML for document metadata, and a new effort has begunwhichthat is considering use of XML for medical information. Other groups view XML as a mechanism for marshalling parameters for remote procedure calls. More uses of XML will undoubtedly arise.
Security considerations will vary by domain of use. For example, XML medical records will have much more stringent privacy and security considerations than XML library metadata. Similarly, use of XML as a parameter marshalling syntax necessitates a case by case security review.
XML may also have some of the same security concerns as plain text. Like plain text, XML can contain escape sequenceswhichthat, when displayed, have the potential to change the display processor environment in ways that adversely affect subsequent operations. Possible effects include, but are not limited to, locking the keyboard, changing display parameters so subsequent displayed text is unreadable, or even changing display parameters to deliberately obscure or distort subsequent displayed material so that its meaning is lost or altered. Display processors shouldSHOULDeither filter such material from displayed text or else make sure to reset all important settings after a given display operation is complete.
Some terminal devices have keys whose output, when pressed, can be changed by sending the display processor a character sequence. If this is possible the display of a text object containing such character sequences could reprogram keys to perform some illicit or dangerous action when the key is subsequently pressed by the user. In some cases not only can keys be programmed, they can be triggered remotely, making it possible for a text display operation to directly perform some unwanted action. As such, the ability to program keysshouldSHOULD be blocked either by filtering or by disabling the ability to program keys entirely.
Note that it is also possible to construct XML documentswhichthat make use of what XML terms "entity references" (using the XML meaning of the term "entity", which differs from the MIME definition of this termas described in Section 2), to construct repeated expansions of text. Recursive expansions are prohibited by DEL[REC-XML] and XML processors are required to detect them. However, even non-recursive expansions may cause problems with the finite computing resources of computers, if they are performed many times. *License RFCのライセンス * メモ - ..// 参照。