- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:18:57 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com>
- Cc: "DSig Group" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
What do you mean by unfinished document? (I think I'm getting the gist, and with the C example you seem to be referring to the language completeness v. expressitivity issue...) Is an unfinished document a document that does not have va syntax required by the specified grammar of its schema definition? At 08:53 99/09/14 -0700, John Boyer wrote: >The common language usage of the term closure is >as a noun for the act of closing or finishing (e.g. "We would like closure >on this specification process as soon as possible"). > >The current XFDL filters are designed to specify the precise conditions >necessary to close or finish a document. Thus, if person A signs an >unfinished document, then the signature filters can be set up to describe >precisely what is allowed to change after Person A's signature in order to >achieve closure on the document. ... >Since application >designers are able to define part of the language that is being signed (the >keywords used by their brand of XML), our task is simply to provide >mechanisms that allow secure signatures to be created regardless of the >particular well-formed XML grammatical constructs that are selected by the >application designer. Otherwise, we are deciding to sign a subset of >well-formed XML and must go to the trouble of defining that subset and then >considering whether the subset is sufficiently powerful >to express the types of signatures that the community at large will need to >create. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 16 September 1999 13:38:35 UTC