- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:30:22 -0500
- To: "Chris Smithies" <Chris_Smithies@penop.com>
- Cc: rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 18:46 99/11/24 +0000, Chris Smithies wrote: >Why, when no other kind of electronic signature is invalidated by changing >the document's location, should XML signatures be any different? The argument is: 1. It is not a location; it is a URI. 2. Is is merely a collection of bits, which represent a syntax, which we define the meaning of! If we don't define it to be a location that MUST be dereferenced every time a signature is checked, then it isn't! I define the syntax to mean: a. There is a set of XML documents that when transformed yield DigestContent (the content that is finally digested.) b. At some point in time, the XML document obtained by dereferencing this URI was just such a document. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I've expressed it well, and any sort of exposition on this topic seems to readily confuse people. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 14:30:27 UTC