- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:15:58 +0200
- To: <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
[switched to public list] I have updated the draft accordingly. In the introductory material I changed to used enveloping and enveloped signatures, which is what I think you meant. Also fixed a few typos etc. http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlsec-rngschema/Overview.html Please take a look and see if it is acceptable. Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:47 AM, ext MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote: > Frederick, > > Thank you for revising the note. > > I propose to introduce the following paragrarphs at the end of the > introduction section. > > These RELAX NG schemas are highly modularized. This > modularization has two significant advantages. First, it is > easy to create schemas dedicated to enclosed signatures or > those dedicated to enclosing schemas. Second, it is easy to > create schemas for imposing tight constraints where > <xsd:any> in the orinal XSD schemas does not impose such > tight constraints. > > However, this modularization increases the number of schema > modules. > > First, a wildcard schema is needed for each core schema > (e.g., xmldsig-core-schema.rnc and xenc-schema.rnc). > Wildcard schema mimick <xsd:any> in core schemas. A > wildcard can be further customized by a driver schema or it > can be simply replaced by another schema when tight > constraints have to be hardcoded. > > Second, one top-level schema is needed for each > combination of core schemas and the choice from the > "enclosing" and "enclosed" options. In this note, we only > provide top-level schemas for enclosed signatures or > encryptions, but it is easy to create top-level schemas for enclosing > signatures or encryptions. > > I believe that allowAny.rnc is no longer used. Please remove it from > Section 2. > >> Can you please check the current editors draft to make sure all appropriate >> files are referenced from the document? I believe they are, but may >> have missed one. > > I will do so tomorrow. > > Cheers, > Makoto
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 17:16:47 UTC