W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > December 2010

Re: ACTION-741:Summarize schema issues with Verification elements

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:33:07 +0100
To: <cantor.2@osu.edu>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7419A461-CF60-4F76-8031-EB698DF398CA@nokia.com>
+1 to consistency of approach

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:28 PM, ext Cantor, Scott E. wrote:

> This is a companion to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Dec/0046.html so please read that first.
> 
> What I was proposing on the last call was to consider revising the XML model of the Verification child elements to match the conventions elsewhere in the specification in which a generic element with an Algorithm or Type attribute is used to identify specific versions of the generic element.
> 
> Today, we have this:
> 
> <dsig2:Selection Type="..." Subtype="...">
> 	...
> </dsig2:Selection>
> <dsig2:Verificiation>
>    <dsig2:DigestDataLength>100</dsig2:DigestDataLength>
>    <dsig2:IDAttributes>
>        <dsig2:QualifiedAttr Name="type" NS="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"/>
>    </dsig2:IDAttributes>
> </dsig2:Verification>
> 
> In the linked email, I'm suggesting this:
> 
> <dsig2:Selection Algorithm="...">
> 	...
> </dsig2:Selection>
> 
> Here, I'm suggesting this:
> 
> <dsig2:Verifications>
>    <dsig2:Verification Type="...#DigestDataLength">100</dsig2:Verification>
>    <dsig2:Verification Type="...#IDAttributes">
>        <dsig2:QualifiedAttr Name="type" NS="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"/>
>    </dsig2:Verification>
> </dsig2:Verifications>
> 
> There would be some schema and section reorg associated with this change, largely analagous to the changes I suggested in the linked email, so I don't think I need to go through all of them.
> 
> Note that I am not suggesting this is "better" in XML or anything like that. I'm suggesting it's more *consistent* with the rest of the spec. For better or worse, decisions get made and different specs take different approaches to representing extensibility. I think consistency within a spec is the important issue. It makes it easier to build implementations when you aren't constantly mixing XML metaphors. IMHO at least.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 14:34:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 December 2010 14:35:19 GMT