- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:39:44 -0400
- To: W3C XML Coordination <w3c-xml-cg@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
[cc'd public XML Security WG list] The XML Security WG is creating a 1.1 version of XML Signature that builds on the original XML Signature, Second Edition Recommendation[1]. As a result there is a namespace for the XML Signature, Second Edition specification as well as a new namespace for 1.1 specific extensions, such as identification of new elements that can be added as children of an existing element (e.g. DEREncodedKeyValue as a child of KeyInfo), as well as new algorithm identifiers. The question raised in the WG is how best to implement schema processing with multiple schemas - is it necessary for a schema validator to be explicitly aware of multiple schemas, or is there a practice to allow a validator to take a single schema (that uses import or some other method as needed) [2[3]. It may be the case that a validator should be aware of multiple namespaces and associated schemas. Should we recommend or be aware of any specific techniques for schema validation involving multiple schemas? Are any best practices recorded for either writing a specification that involves multiple namespaces or for implementations involving a specification that requires multiple namespaces (and associated schema definitions)? Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Chair XML Security WG [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/142 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Oct/0012.html This message should complete ACTION-384.
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 14:40:34 UTC