RE: signature overview question/comment

Blake replied to me: 

> I believe the notation in the XML dsig draft comes from the XML 1.0
> Recommendation. See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml, Section 6. 
> The notation used is quite standard and is a simplified EBNF grammar. 

Thanks! I'm familiar with EBNF and noticed similarity. But, the DSIG
notation in 2.0 does not follow the simplified EBNF you refered to, as far
as I can tell. I also didn't see similar usage within
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.  In the DSIG usage, there isn't a strict
definition, and some elements are refered to using XML tags and syntax (e.g.
<SignedInfo>, <Reference>) while others are within parenthesis instead of
brackets (e.g. (DigestValue)), without their internal elements, etc. This
makes a useful intuitive, simplified presentation (compared e.g. to looking
directly at the schemas), which I like. However, I still wonder if this is a
well known and defined format. 

Thanks, Amir