- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:05:21 -0400
- To: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
- Cc: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
At 11:11 6/13/2001, Mark Bartel wrote: >and have any signatures in <A> still be verifiable without having to >isolate the <A> element. I would personally call this an interoperability >issue, but strictly speaking it is a composition issue, and I'm not sure >this type of composition is mandated by the requirements [1] (see #3). Mark, I agree that it would be a useful thing to have. However, I think the composing XML applications are going to have to address this issue regardless, and if we do address it as REQUIRED as Don suggested, we're going to have to change the namespace for xlmdsig and take extra time to the Repulsive Canonical XML to REC. I'm happy for it to be specified externally, and even reach REC orthogonally (not speaking of Standard since we didn't do that with Canonical XML) but the mandatoriness will be expensive for &dsig; in terms of time and its affect on implementations. The question is, do people think it's justified? (It may well be, that's just not where my bias is presently.) -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 14:05:36 UTC