W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: [Moderator Action] Re: Signed-XML (revised) ("Electronic" Signature in RD)

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:56:58 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990625155658.00a58540@localhost>
To: "TSGMAN @ Earthlink" <tsgman@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Bugbee, Larry" <Larry.Bugbee@PSS.Boeing.com>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 03:15 PM 6/25/99 -0400, TSGMAN @ Earthlink wrote:
 >All signature and digesting technologies should be represented in an
 >encodiong scheme compatible with the structure and syntax of the host
 >language. In instances where this representation format would violate the
 >XML coding and processing standards, some other intermediary representation
 >format will have to be selected.

A characteristic of a good requirement is that its contrary is easily
constructed. Also a question is, is this a requirement on the WG, spec,
syntax, processor, or application. It's hard for me to do this with this
proposal, perhaps because I'm not sure what you mean by "technologies" or
"host" language.

To generalize, are you expressing a requirement over the syntax such that
any non-parsed data [1] must be represented in a non-encoded format where
possible? For example, an RTF file should be included at RTF syntax as part
of a CDATA [2]? :
        <![CDATA[...]]>

If so, I'm not sure what this has to do with "electronic signatures"?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-intro
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-cdata-sect
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 25 June 1999 15:56:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:06 GMT