- From: Jim Schaad (Exchange) <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:49:16 -0700
- To: "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
The use of Location="" to refer to the entire document appears to me to be potentially troublesome in work flow applications. When one starts including or moving forward signed documents, add other items (including other signatures) and so forth. Using Location="" to refer to the containing document has now rather drastically changed its meaning and its not clear that the same set of items can be found again except potentially by explicit inclusion (rather than exclusion). I assume that when this statement is made that the omission of the Location element is absent that it is equivalent to <Location HREF="">. While I agree that it would be nice to be able to refernce the containing document by some simple and identifiable expression I don't believe that Location="" should potentially be that expression. I would like to reserve this for a different reference, specifcally the object contained within the Signature element. I believe that a large number of protocal messages will be built with the data being signed (a single item) being included in the Object of the Signature. These are the message that I am most worried about size for, and would therefore like to be able to omit the Location reference and still have it well understood what the location of the object is suppose to be. It seems to me that we potentially need a couple of different types of "labels" that are distinct within the location. Specifically would be "this is a URI of one type" and "You (the application) know what this is really suppose to be, find it for me" are two that spring to mind. Potentially the root of the document could be represented as <Location DOC/>. jim
Received on Thursday, 28 October 1999 17:49:19 UTC