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

Re: XML Security 1.1 implementations and interop, RNG Schema

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:15:58 +0200
To: <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <470AC2F5-64CD-4E64-AD63-8AD9894B8687@nokia.com>
[switched to public list]

I have updated the draft accordingly. In the introductory material I changed to used enveloping and enveloped signatures, which is what I think you meant. Also fixed a few typos etc.

http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlsec-rngschema/Overview.html

Please take a look and see if it is acceptable.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:47 AM, ext MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:

> Frederick,
> 
> Thank you for revising the note.
> 
> I propose to introduce the following paragrarphs at the end of the
> introduction section.
> 
> 	These RELAX NG schemas are highly modularized.  This
> 	modularization has two significant advantages.  First, it is
> 	easy to create schemas dedicated to enclosed signatures or
> 	those dedicated to enclosing schemas.  Second, it is easy to
> 	create schemas for imposing tight constraints where
> 	<xsd:any> in the orinal XSD schemas does not impose such
> 	tight constraints.
> 
> 	However, this modularization increases the number of schema
> 	modules.
> 
> 	First, a wildcard schema is needed for each core schema
> 	(e.g., xmldsig-core-schema.rnc and xenc-schema.rnc).
> 	Wildcard schema mimick <xsd:any> in core schemas.  A
> 	wildcard can be further customized by a driver schema or it
> 	can be simply replaced by another schema when tight
> 	constraints have to be hardcoded.
> 
> 	Second, one top-level  schema is needed for each
> 	combination of core schemas and the choice from the
> 	"enclosing" and "enclosed" options.  In this note, we only
> 	provide top-level  schemas for enclosed signatures or
> 	encryptions, but it is easy to create top-level schemas for enclosing
> 	signatures or encryptions.
> 
> I believe that allowAny.rnc is no longer used.  Please remove it from
> Section 2.
> 
>> Can you please check the current editors draft to make sure all appropriate 
>> files are referenced from the document?  I believe they are, but may
>> have missed one.
> 
> I will do so tomorrow.
> 
> Cheers,
> Makoto
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 17:16:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 July 2010 17:16:47 GMT