- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:52:52 +0000
- To: <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
It seems to me that what Makoto is saying makes sense, by asking Is there a way to leverage schema validation tools so that if material from sig11 is referenced from within an enc11 instance we can obtain validation of the sig11 material from the tools? This question must have come up before and must have been resolved, perhaps by using import. Apart from philosophy (I've read the rest of the thread), is there any practical reason not to do what Makoto is suggesting? (are we concerned with loading the unneeded schema definitions for some reason?) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Sep 3, 2011, at 4:03 PM, ext MURATA Makoto wrote: > My mistake. Let me write what I wrote. > > If the schema for Encryption 1.1 does not normatively reference > the schema for Signature 1.1, validity of this subtree against the > schema for Signature 1.1 is not required. Validators are required > to validate this subtree only when validity against both the schema > for Signature 1.1 and the schema for Encryption 1.1 is checked. > Is this really your intention? > > Does this make sense? > > Regards, > Makoto > > 2011/9/4 Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu>: >> On 9/2/11 11:16 PM, "MURATA Makoto" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> I still do not understand. The revised gh-example.xml still contains >>> <dsig11:ECKeyValue>...</dsig11:ECKeyValue>. >>> >>> If Encryption 1.1 does not normatively reference Signature 1.1, >>> conformant implementations are not required to handle this subtree >>> as specified in Signature 1.1. >> >> This: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-xmlenc-core1-20110303/ >> >> includes a normative reference to XML Signature 1.1. So what are you >> looking at? >> >> -- Scott >> >> > > > > -- > > Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake > > Makoto >
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 12:53:30 UTC