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

Re: [widgets] dig sig and requirements ready for pub!

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:00:12 +0200
To: marcosc@opera.com
Message-Id: <9C546D6D-1905-44D6-8C7B-EFCC2968B9CD@w3.org>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, ext Kai Hendry <hendry@aplix.co.jp>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4 May 2009, at 18:42, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Frederick Hirsch
> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>> The Identifier property is useful for audit and management in the  
>> backend.
>>  I believe this should remain in the specification and should  
>> remain a
>> normative section, agreeing with Thomas note in the chat. It was  
>> added based
>> on requirements from WG members.
>>
>
> I understand the use case, but i still don't understand why we are
> mandating the use of the dsp:Identifier if it's not going to be used
> by the UA? If a signer wants to use dsp:Identifier for whatever
> reason, then are free to do so by using the Signature Properties spec.
> Putting something in the spec that does not do anything doesn't make
> sense to me.

Some of these use cases may, in the future, affect distributor or user  
agent behavior.  Some (like revocation) might get broken if the  
identifier isn't universally deployed.

Again, what's the cost?
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 17:00:22 GMT

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