Re: Separate namespace for KeyInfo?

At 02:19 PM 3/2/00 +0100, Malte Borcherding wrote:
 >In my opinion, this buys a clearly structured repository of references to
 >cryptographic algorithms and structures. It simplifies re-use of
definitions,
 >since you know where to look if you want to include a reference to an
algorithm
 >in your self-defined XML document.

I still don't understand (please show me an example of what this provides
above/beyond my example). If you and/or Ed are advocating a DTD module based
construction [1], I would advise against that: XHTML did it because they
started well before schemas. If you are advocating a composed schema [2]
based on specific namespaces, I think that would be interesting, but a bit
too advanced for my tastes at this moment. (And -- obviously -- I'm not sure
what having a separate namespace without either of these things actually
provides.)

 >Speaking of re-use, has there been any discussion in the past about
including
 >some sort of reference to well-known OIDs for cryptographic algorithms?
 
I believe the general feeling has been to avoid OIDs (and related
discussion).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml-building-20000105/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#composition

<schema targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#" 
  version="0.1" 
  xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#">

   <import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig/Core#"
     schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig/Core#"
   />

   <import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig/KeyInfo#"
     schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig/KeyInfo#"
   />

</schema>



_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Thursday, 2 March 2000 11:11:25 UTC