W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > November 2008

ISSUE-72: DTD required for v1.1 or v.next of XML Signature? [v.next (Design for XML Signature V Next)]

From: XML Security Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:10:10 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-xmlsec@w3.org
Message-Id: <20081106171010.2D6676B62D@tibor.w3.org>


ISSUE-72: DTD required for v1.1 or v.next of XML Signature? [v.next (Design for XML Signature V Next)]

http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/72

Raised by: Frederick Hirsch
On product: v.next (Design for XML Signature V Next)

Do we need to provide a DTD for XML Signature v1.1 or v.next? Is there a W3C policy related to providing DTDs with Recommendations? ( I did not see this topic in the W3C process or member guide documents, but may have missed it).

If a specification update is in the same namespace, and the previous version had a DTD, should the update continue to have a DTD and if it does not - would this be confusing or a problem. If it does, can the DTD have additions or changes. For a v.next, breaking changes are allowed, so it seems a DTD should no longer be required, but what is the current best practice?

This question arose because there appear to be some issues related to  adding new algorithms - I expect there will be more detail on the list regarding this topic. 

Would anyone have a concern if no DTD were defined going forward, for v.next? What about v1.1?
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 17:10:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:55 GMT