W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

[widgets] DigSig, usage of 'not required' in Document Profile section

From: Jere Kapyaho <jere.kapyaho@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:08:03 +0200
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C58BF183.4698%jere.kapyaho@nokia.com>


here is a small issue regarding how the term 'not required' is used in the
Widgets Digital Signatures spec, in the 'Digital Signature Document Profile'
section [1]. I think this remains even if the spec will refer to the XML
Signature Syntax and Processing 1.1 spec. (<-- correct name? reference?)

These phrases appear:

- "A widget user agent is not required to support any other canonicalization
- "A widget user agent is not required to support any other digest methods."
- "A widget user agent is not required to support other certificate formats
(e.g., PGP, SPKI, etc)."

In the first two instances, 'not required' is formatted like RFC 2119
keywords [2]; in the third it is not. The problem seems to be that 'not
required' is not an RFC 2119 keyword expression (even though 'required' is;
this has tripped at least me before). Would the equivalent result be
achieved if these statements said "a widget user agent MAY support other
canonicalization methods" etc.? After all, the spec already defines the
mandatory c14n, digest and certificate.


[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#digital
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 16:09:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC