W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Canonical XML revision

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:10:48 -0500
Message-ID: <43BBE578.7010905@datapower.com>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org

John Boyer wrote:

> For the record, though, it sounds like you have the 
> perspective of a dsig implementer rather than an XML document author.

Guilty as charged. :)

> But the bottom line is that it is still a failure that will require the 
> dsig implementer to solve
> the impedance mismatch between sign and validate software *regardless* 
> of which approach we take.


> we can either fix the problem
> so that you get a failure AND document authors have to learn new techniques that
> have obscure reasons for being required (the new algorithm approach) or we can
> fix the problem so that no changes to document author collateral is required.

Are there many XML document authors writing XML DSIG elements on their 
own?  Is the incremental cost of a new Transform URI that much greater, 
when compared to the burden of learning about xml:id?

I'd phrase your paragraph above as follows:

"We can either address the issue in a way that makes interop problems 
easier to diagnose and lets some current software work without change, 
or we can require everyone who uses the new xml:id attribute to change 
their software and/or procedures."

I still feel, strongly, that an errata is the wrong thing to do.

SOA Appliance Group
IBM Application Integration Middleware
* This address is going away; please use rsalz@us.ibm.com *
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:16:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:40 UTC