In response to [1]; cc'd to chairs since I think it is a common issue to all W3C WGs. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/1999OctDec/0132.html At 21:32 99/10/21 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: >Seems like a good argument for a shorter namespace URI, like >"http://w3.org/sig-v1". >>At Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:06:57 -0700 , Jim Schaad wrote: >>In this example, the first 62% of the document (roughly 840 characters) is >>the same for all signed messages. (This assumes that the same >>canonicalization and signature algorithm are routinely used.) This means I would certainly like smaller namespaces, but (unfortunately) the namespace I provided is in compliance with the editorial/namespace allocation policies of the W3C -- though I'm not sure where they are formally documented, but TimBL stated www.w3.org is the host name of the W3C, so not much to do there. I don't think W3C would allocate a top level directory for a namespace and the W3C tends to lean towards dated spaces... 1. For xml-namespace purposes I don't see this as too much of a readability problem since you can declare it once and use a prefix. 2. For xml-namespaces when expaned in c14n form and hashed, we have a unique problem that we are going to have _lots_ of redundancy that can lead to weaker signatures. I hope we create a nonce element that one can stick at the beginning of the signature. 3. For readable property types I do see this as a big problem, stuff like: http://www.w3.org/1999/10/signature-core/manifest is pretty ugly. It'd be nice if there were a "entity" or "macro" (similar to prefix) that one could use to map namespaces to something more terse. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/Received on Friday, 22 October 1999 10:42:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:08 GMT