- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:13:59 -0400
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: <duerst@w3.org>, <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <dbeech@us.oracle.com>, <murray@muzmo.com>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Given we expect numerous XML 1.0 valdidity constraints [1] to be enforced for Signatures to even be processed properly, I think we should call a spade a spade and say a validating parser is required. What that means is up the implementator depending on the Signature applications, toolkits, etc., that they use: they could use a well-formed processor and build the relevant constraints relevant to Signature the DTD themselves, or use a generic validating parser; that's an implementation issue. I don't think it makes sense for us to say in the spec "well-formed" and profile XML 1.0 validity constraints. My question is how many schema validity constraints [2] are there in addition to [1] if you don't actually use many feature beyond [1]. (We are using basic content models and ANY, and a single user defined type, that's about it ...) Is our use of Schema truly "normative"? [1] Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#vc-roottype http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#elementvalid http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#EDUnique http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#id ... [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#conformance-details Forwarded Text ---- Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:09:20 -0400 To: Ken Goldman <kgold@watson.ibm.com> From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> In-Reply-To: <200007061652.MAA34032@alpha.watson.ibm.com> Subject: Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative? Status: At 12:52 2000-07-06 -0400, Ken Goldman wrote: >Could you give an XML snippet of this, showing the issue? Assuming that the following well formed XML instance reference and signature validates, is the following example a valid Signature? (It violates the specified content model). I'm slightly confusing the syntactical violation with a clear violation of semantics ("disclaimer") just to show why this might be important, but [x01-03] could be any name space qualified and wellformed XML. [s01] <Signature Id="MyFirstSignature" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#"> [s02] <SignedInfo> [x01] <disclaimer xmlns="http://badactor.com/2000/v3"> [x02] <declaration>this signature is invalid on tuesdays</declaration> [x03] </disclaimer> [s03] <CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000119"/> [s04] <SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#dsa-sha1"/> [s05] <Reference URI="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126/"> [s06] <Transforms> [s07] <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000119"/> [s08] </Transforms> [s09] <DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#sha1"/> [s10] <DigestValue>j6lwx3rvEPO0vKtMup4NbeVu8nk=</DigestValue> [s11] </Reference> [s12] </SignedInfo> [s13] <SignatureValue>MC0CFFrVLtRlk=...</SignatureValue> [s14] <KeyInfo> [s15a] <KeyValue> [s15b] <DSAKeyValue> [s15c] <P>...</P><Q>...</Q><G>...</G><Y>...</Y> [s15d] </DSAKeyValue> [s15e] </KeyValue> [s16] </KeyInfo> [s17] </Signature> _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ End Forwarded Text ---- _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 7 July 2000 23:16:11 UTC