- From: XML Security Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:10:10 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-xmlsec@w3.org
ISSUE-72: DTD required for v1.1 or v.next of XML Signature? [v.next (Design for XML Signature V Next)] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/72 Raised by: Frederick Hirsch On product: v.next (Design for XML Signature V Next) Do we need to provide a DTD for XML Signature v1.1 or v.next? Is there a W3C policy related to providing DTDs with Recommendations? ( I did not see this topic in the W3C process or member guide documents, but may have missed it). If a specification update is in the same namespace, and the previous version had a DTD, should the update continue to have a DTD and if it does not - would this be confusing or a problem. If it does, can the DTD have additions or changes. For a v.next, breaking changes are allowed, so it seems a DTD should no longer be required, but what is the current best practice? This question arose because there appear to be some issues related to adding new algorithms - I expect there will be more detail on the list regarding this topic. Would anyone have a concern if no DTD were defined going forward, for v.next? What about v1.1?
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 17:10:20 UTC