- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:30:05 -0400
- To: <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 09:52 AM 5/29/00 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
>If we make this restriction (I do not see an argument against it), I
suggest
>to reject the SignatureProperties element at all, since it only works as
>an additional "container" level between Object and SignatureProperty, but
>nothing else.
That's a good point. It is rather superflous. I'd be interested in what
others have to say...
>In this case I also suggest to reject SignatureProperties. Instead, supply
>each SignatureProperty element with an Id AND a Target attribute.
Well, I changed the example to make it clearer this is what should happpen
(though I'm hesitant to make the change of removing SignatureProperties' ID,
or the element itself without further discussion (though I agree with you on
removing it.))
[p10] <Object>
[p11] <SignatureProperties>
[p12] <SignatureProperty Id="AMadeUpTimeStamp"
Target=" #MySecondSignature ">
[p13] <timestamp xmlns="http://www.ietf.org/rfcXXXX.txt">
[p14] <date>19990908</date>
[p15] <time>14:34:34:34</time>
[p16] </timestamp>
[p17] </SignatureProperty>
[p18] </SignatureProperties>
[p19] </Object>
_________________________________________________________
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, 31 May 2000 14:30:18 UTC