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

Re: [widgets] DigSig - proposed change to XML Signature Properties

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:50:05 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14196A5D-9CC7-4E33-9F58-148A15C81F79@nokia.com>
To: "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Given the CR stage [1] of Widgets Signature, it probably makes sense  
to not make this schema change, since it would break implementations,  
even though changes are still allowed at this stage. As Scott notes,  
it is more of a style issue - however I thought it worth mentioning  
given that Signature Properties is about to enter Last Call.


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi


On Jan 7, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> The XML Security WG is considering changing the syntax of the Profile
> and Role elements of the XML Signature Properties spec.
>
> It appears to me the proposed change would affect at least sections 5.
> {1,2,3} and the example.
>
> If you have any comments on the proposed changes, please send them to
> both public-webapps@w3.org and public-xmlsec@w3.org.
>
> Frederick, Scott - would you please explain the rationale for the
> proposed change?
>
> -Art Barstow
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)"
>> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
>> Date: January 7, 2010 1:31:20 PM EST
>> To: ext Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
>> Cc: "Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)"
>> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-
>> xmlsec@w3.org>, "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)"
>> <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-163, standalone XSD and RNG schema needed for
>> Signature Properties
>>
>> Thanks very much Scott.
>>
>> I'll check with Art Barstow, Chair of WebApps regarding the  
>> suggestion
>> to change the Profile and Role elements to see if that would have a
>> negative impact on them.
>>
>> What do others think, any issue with making that change if acceptable
>> to the Webapps WG? Any objection?
>>
>> specifically, I think the suggestion is to change
>>
>> <element name="Profile" type="dsp:ProfileType"/>
>>   <complexType name="ProfileType">
>>     <attribute name="URI" type="anyURI"/>
>>   </complexType>
>>
>> to
>>
>> <element name="Profile" type="anyURI"/>
>>
>> and likewise for Role.
>>
>> Are there any other issues or concerns with this updated schema that
>> Scott sent? I'd like to update the Signature Properties schema
>> snippets to match, link in this schema, and get help on creating an
>> RNG schema (anyone here feel that they can handle it for this
>> relatively simple schema?)
>>
>> I'd also like to incorporate an example as Scott suggests, preferably
>> one from WebApps.
>>
>> regards, Frederick
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:18 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:
>>
>>>> I checked in a draft xsd schema file after extracting the schema
>>>> from
>>>> the examples and starting to try to fix some errors, in case that
>>>> helps an easier start:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-properties/xmldsig-
>>> properties-
>>>> schema.xsd
>>>
>>> A valid version is attached, with the following changes:
>>>
>>> - fixing some errors and missing prefixes
>>> - removing extra type definitions when the element is just a
>>> string or
>>> dateTime
>>>
>>> In addition, I would suggest changing the two properties that are
>>> empty
>>> elements with the URI attributes into elements with a type of anyURI
>>> and
>>> just putting the value into the element.
>>>
>>> Note that I'm also just correcting the schema as given, and since
>>> there are
>>> no examples in the document, I can't tell you for sure whether the
>>> XML you
>>> *want* is represented.
>>>
>>> -- Scott
>>>
>>> <xmldsig-properties-schema.xsd>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 20:08:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 January 2010 20:08:26 GMT