- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 18:11:13 -0400
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I've written a draft comment on the schema last call. I plan to send our
formal comment on May 10th. Please comment or discuss and make sure that if
you disagree or have some issue beyond those represented (aside from
editorial comments which can be sent seperately (I will probably break mine
off)) make it known _before_ the 9th. Thanks!
[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/05/03-schema-review.html
DRAFT:
The XML Signature WG thanks the XML Schema WG for their work and the
opportunity to review the last call Working Draft [1]. This comment
does not address the ease of implementation but only whether the
functionality as specified meets our requirements. To that end, the
last call specification easily meets our requirements. In particular,
the content types (elementOnly | empty | mixed | textOnly) and the
Wildecard Schema Component <ANY/> are very useful for dealing with
mixed content scenarios which are common to the signature domain. In
time, the type extension capabilities might be a useful feature in
constructing other cryptographic (key and certificate) syntaxes but we
are presently not employing these typing features.
[1] mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Since the XML Signature specification should enter the W3C
Recommendation and IETF Standard tracks soon, we ask that the schema
WG give priority to the need for a stabilized syntax and for
expediently advancing the schema specification towards Recommendation.
Joseph Reagle, on behalf of the XML Signature WG
[Editorial Comments]
...
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 18:11:56 UTC