W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [widgets] W3C Widgets Digital Signatures implementer feedback

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:35:28 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBuUo19ebWVSHg3bB2+4dxkVuiCxo3ufiWeVjH@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> Dear Web Apps WG,
> Opera would like to provide some feedback based on our implementation
> experience of the Widgets Digsig specification.
>
> Generally, we found that the specification is implementable but have
> significant concerns about the requirement on XML Canonicalization 1.1.
> Basically, we found that in practice you don't need it for this version of
> the spec as widget signatures do not make use of the things Canonicalization
> 1.1 addresses.
>
> We would like to propose the specification be changed to use XML
> Canonicalization 1.0 throughout the specification.

To be clear, we mean:

XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315

> If other implementers have found the same thing (i.e., they don't require
> Canonicalization 1.1), then please lets start a discussion about what
> changes need to be made to the specification and the potential impact of
> using Canonicalization 1.0 exclusively throughout.
>
> If we get rapid agreement, then we can move to updating the spec, changing
> the test cases, and republishing as a new LC ASAP.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
>
>



-- 
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 16:36:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT