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

Re: importing terminology in "XML-Signature Requirements"

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:01:46 -0500
Message-ID: <3795EEEA.680DDBC8@w3.org>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
CC: "Richard D. Brown" <rdbrown@globeset.com>, IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
"Joseph M. Reagle Jr." wrote:
> At 04:17 PM 7/13/99 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xmldsig-requirements-990623.html
[...]
> >Talking about a piece of code in any way other than behaviour
>  >that's observable from the outside is counterproductive in
>  >specs. In stead of:
>  >      An XML-Signature application must be able to use and understand
>  >I suggest you just write:
>  >      The XML-Signature specification may depend on:
> 
> I don't quite follow, I find the latter more ambigous. What I'm trying to
> state is that a signed-XML application IS a {XLink, XPtr, XML-namespace}
> application as described. (Perhaps with additional constractions.)

But the term "XML-namespaces application" isn't defined anywhere.
I don't think there is/will be terms "XLInk application"
nor "XPointer application" either. So I don't see how
you think the former is less ambiguous; it referes to undefined terms.

What's ambiguous about saying that the XML Signature spec
may depend on the XLink/XPointer/namespaces specs? i.e. folks
who plan to implement the XML Signature spec are advised to
get familiar with those specs as well. Change
"may" to "shall" if you like.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
tel:+1-512-310-2971 (office, mobile)
mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org (put your tel# in the Subject:)
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 1999 12:01:35 GMT

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