Re: Draft 04-January-2000: Errors and typos

From:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:28:35 -0500 (EST)
Resent-Message-Id:  <200001141628.LAA03218@www19.w3.org>
Message-Id:  <3.0.5.32.20000114112750.009e5230@localhost>
X-Sender:  reagle@localhost
Date:  Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:27:50 -0500
To:  Gregor.Karlinger@iaik.at, David Solo <david.solo@citicorp.com>,
            <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc:  ML W3C XML-Signature <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
In-Reply-To:  <387C5280.88AD120@iaik.at>

>At 11:08 00/01/12 +0100, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
> >I have found the following errors and typos in our latest draft:
> 
>Gregor, thank you again for the careful readings! I corrected everything
>aside from the three points below that others in the WG should be able to
>respond to.
>
> >###################################
> >Section 3.4, Schema Definition and DTD of Element KeyInfo:
> >The content model is inconsistent:
> >
> >Schema Definition:
> >"<group order='choice' minOccurs='1' maxOccurs='1'>"
> >
> >DTD:
> >"(KeyName | KeyValue | SubjectName | RetrievalMethod | x509Data | PGPData 
> > | MgmtData)*"
> >
> >There are two possibilities:
> >
> >a) KeyInfo can contain exactly one child element; then Schema Definition
> >   is OK and the asterisk has to be omited from the DTD
> >
> >b) KeyInfo can be a repeated choice of its children; then maxOccurs must
> >   be changed to maxOccurs='*' in the Schema Definition and the asterisk
> >   must be replaced by a plus sign in the DTD.
> 
>I assume the authors of that section intend option (b): for more than one
>type of KeyInfo to be provided. Consequently, repeated declarations
>redundantly refer to the same key.

It's normally only one value but MgmtData can appear with KeyuValue...
Maybe (KeyName | (KeyValue MgmtData?) | SubjectName | RetrievalMethod
| x509Data | PGPData)

> >######################################
> >Section 4.1, DTD:
> >The content models of elements Manifest and Package are currently:
> >
> >"( (Reference | Object )+ )"
> >
> >In order to comply with both the Schema definition and the corresponding
> >sections in chapter 2 both models should be replaced with 
> >
> >"( Reference+, Object* )"
> 
>I actually believe the DTD is correct and the other language is incorrect. I
>would think it would be possible to provide only two objects within a
>Manifest. Donald?

We have always used R+ O* before.  Personnally, I'd be happy to move to 
R|O+, which is more general, but I believe the consensus in the WG has been to
avoid such variable orderings and stick with fixed orderings of sub-elements
as implied by R+ O*.

> >###########################################
> >Section 5.4.1, Schema and DTD:
> >
> >Since the key values refer to the algorithm (DSA) and not to the standard
> >(DSS) I suggest to rename the element name from
> >
> >    "<element name='DSSKeyValue'>" and 
> >    "<!ELEMENT DssKeyValue (P, Q, G, Y, J?, (seed, pgenCounter)?) >"
> >
> >into 
> >
> >    "<element name='DSAKeyValue'>" and 
> >    "<!ELEMENT DSAKeyValue (P, Q, G, Y, J?, (seed, pgenCounter)?) >"
> >
> >BTW: Currently the element names are different in Schema and DTD
> >     (DSSKeyValue and DssKeyValue respectively).
> 
>Makes sense to me? David/Barbara/Donald?
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Joseph Reagle Jr.   
>Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
>XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/

Donald

Received on Saturday, 15 January 2000 10:40:08 UTC