W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Importing 1.0 while normatively referencing 1.1 ( LC-2544) ( LC-2561)

From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 06:25:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CALvn5EDKHuNYDTDrVANaJ5S_9U+cVay4YaA=wq1RanOjiv_p1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Hmm.  Although conformance to Encryption 1.1 requires conformance
(including validity) to Signature 1.1, validity against the Encryption 1.1
schema does not require validity against the Signature 1.1 schema.
At the very least, I think that this idiosyncrasy should be clearly documented
in Encryption 1.1.


2011/9/4 Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu>:
> On 9/3/11 4:03 PM, "MURATA Makoto" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>>If the schema for Encryption 1.1 does not normatively reference
>>the schema for Signature 1.1, validity of  this subtree against the
>>schema for Signature 1.1 is not required. Validators are required
>>to validate this subtree only when validity against both the schema
>>for Signature  1.1 and the schema for Encryption 1.1 is checked.
>>Is this really your intention?
> Yes. If an application expects to support both schemas, thatıs its
> responsibility to deal with.
> The import mechanism is for bringing in types that an importing schema
> needs to reuse in some way. It isn't appropriate to import a schema to
> make a conformance statement about what types an implementation that is
> using the importing schema might be required to also support. I have never
> seen that done, and it certainly isn't the purpose of the import mechanism.
> It is simply understood that if you want to conform to XML Encryption 1.1,
> you must also conform to the normatively referenced parts of XML Signature
> 1.1, schemas included.
> -- Scott


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Received on Saturday, 3 September 2011 23:55:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:16 UTC