W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [widgets] W3C Widgets Digital Signatures implementer feedback

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:01:39 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPQdtrJOfdpL+exkJFitD856GDV+srOYsBN5SU@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
>> Dear Web Apps WG,
>> Opera would like to provide some feedback based on our implementation
>> experience of the Widgets Digsig specification.
>> Generally, we found that the specification is implementable but have
>> significant concerns about the requirement on XML Canonicalization 1.1.
>> Basically, we found that in practice you don't need it for this version of
>> the spec as widget signatures do not make use of the things Canonicalization
>> 1.1 addresses.
>> We would like to propose the specification be changed to use XML
>> Canonicalization 1.0 throughout the specification.
> To be clear, we mean:
> XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments):
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315
>> If other implementers have found the same thing (i.e., they don't require
>> Canonicalization 1.1), then please lets start a discussion about what
>> changes need to be made to the specification and the potential impact of
>> using Canonicalization 1.0 exclusively throughout.
>> If we get rapid agreement, then we can move to updating the spec, changing
>> the test cases, and republishing as a new LC ASAP.

I've updated the editor's draft of the spec to use Canonicalization
1.0 throughout for people's consideration.

I would like to call a teleconf for discussion next week to move this
to LC as soon as possible.

Marcos Caceres
Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:02:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:16 UTC