W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] Jar signing vs. XML signatures

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:00:05 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0904151200k3b489db0wa762a3345645c072@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> Although I agree that it was probably a short-sightedness mistake on
> our part to not have looked at JAR signing at the start of this
> process, I think it is too late for you to ask us to dump over a year
> worth of work on this spec - especially as we are about to go to Last
> Call and have significant industry support (BONDI) for using XML
> Signatures. Although I also agree that there are issues with
> canonicalization, I find it hard to believe that JAR signatures are
> not without their own problems. I think it would be more productive to
> help us address the issues that you mentioned, instead of asking us to
> dump everything and start again.

This is a really bad reason not to rework the widget signing spec. I
really hope that there are other more technical reasons that is
keeping us from reworking the spec. As an example the CORS spec had
been in the works for the better part of two years when we started
making some serious changes to it based technical input from reviews.
In the end we ended up adding and removing so many things that nothing
from the original spec was left in. And we were all better off because
of it.

Signing of archives is something that has been solved for a long time
at a significantly lower complexity than the current spec. So it
really shouldn't take that much effort to rework the spec by taking
input from existing solutions.

I'm not suggesting scrapping the spec and starting over. However do
take a look at even the bigger technical solutions in the spec and see
if they can be improved.

Given W3Cs philosophy of what is allowed to be standardized under W3Cs
roof, the fact that the spec reuses W3C specs carries very little
weight with me. For example the fact that it relies on XSD means that
it's a non-started for me.

I'm also not sure why we need to rely on canonicalizing XML files.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 19:01:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT