- From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:29:20 -0800
- To: "'dee3@torque.pothole.com'" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>, "'dsolo@alum.mit.edu'" <dsolo@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "'w3c-xml-schema-ig'" <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
The XML Schema WG thanks the XML Sig WG for the opportuity to review this WD. The Schema WG believes that there are no major issues with the dsig last call WD [1]. However, the draft schema specification(s) has undergone considerable change since the 1999-12-17 draft [3] on which the schema fragments in Section 4 "Core Signature Syntax" are based. The Schema WG therefore requests that the XML Sig WG rewrite all schema(s) used in defining dsig in terms of the schema specification current when schemas reaches CR. Additionally, there are several cases in which more judicious use could be made of Schema Datatypes. For instance, Section 4.2 "The SignatureValue Element" contains the actual signature octet sequence, base64 encoded--it is declared as a string, it should be a binary with the encoding facet equal to base64; Section 4.5 "The Object Element" has a MimeType attribute, declared as a string that could be declared as a subtype of string, with a pattern facet that matched all legal mime type variations. The Schema WG also suggests that the XML Sig WG consider using a mechanism similar to that proposed in [4] for assigning schema datatypes to element/attribute declarations in the dsig DTD. Lastly, the dsig WD should make clear whether the schema and DTD included in Section 9 are normative or informative. Paul V. Biron, on behalf of the XML Schema WG References [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmldsig-core-20000228/
Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 15:48:57 UTC