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
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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:31 UTC