W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF

From: Owen Roberts <oroberts@baltimore.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:42:44 +0100
Message-ID: <3B46C515DDE2D311A70C005004AFCB70221595@emeairl2.cdsemea.baltimore.com>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, Kevin@w3.org.Regan

>  >We are just using the DTD out of the latest draft. (broken as it is
> compared
>  >to the schema)
> 
> How do you mean broken? Kevin has pointed out one problem 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0102.html

Thats the one, aside from Merlins comments.


> I think for the purposes of Interop, it would make sense to create an
> application DTD with Signature+application declarations by which we can
test
> enveloped and enveloping Signatures. Do you already have one?
> 

Essential.
I am in the process of embedding the DTD into another for signing - with
that experience I'll put together another example (embedded/embedding) and
post it.

One comment I do have, is that XML-based applications requiring DTD
validation find it convenient to embed the entire DTD in a DOCTYPE element
in the XML directly - (rather than a reference) so that only the .xml file
need be passed around.
A restriction on doing this is that you can't have variable declarations a
la
<!ENTITY % Object.ANY...>
in the DTD.

For such an application, I have to take the DSIG DTD, search-replace all the
variables, then embed it in the app DTD before embedding that in the xml.

Do people think this is an acceptable process for that situation? I guess it
has to be.

Thanks,
OWen



--
Owen Roberts
Toolkits Architect
Baltimore Technologies, Dublin
oroberts@baltimore.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 05:43:11 GMT

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