W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: signature overview question/comment

From: Amir Herzberg <AMIR@newgenpay.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:03:25 +0300
Message-ID: <078EE8822DCFD411AAA1000629D56ADC0B7E83@IMP01>
To: "'Dournaee, Blake'" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, "Dsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 05:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:36 UTC