Re: <Q> XMLDSig and forms...

Hi,

From:  "XML DSig" <xmldsig@hotmail.com>
Date:  Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:45:34 +0530
Message-ID:  <F1001EetVoMDrxxnSYe00002a36@hotmail.com>

>Hi:
>
>In section 3.4 of the XML-Signature requirements document
>titled "Coordination" it is mentioned
>
>1. The XML Signature specification SHOULD meet the requirements
>   of the following applications:
>   3. At least one forms application [XFA,XFDL]
>
>As far as I understand neither XFA nor XFDL are W3C recommendations.
>In addition the forms vendors in this space iLumin, PureEdge, JetForms
>have NOT made any explicit and specific statements about their support
>for XMLDigital Signature CR on their websites / product brochures.

To my recollection the participants you mention have made informal
statements at various tiime indicating that it is likely they would
likely support the XMLDSIG Specification, a specification they
participated in formulating.  However, as long as the XMLDSIG
Specification COULD support their requirements if they chose to use
it, the clause you recite from the XMLDSIG Requirements, which is only
a "SHOULD" anyway, is met.

>So why should the XML signature requirements make statements such as
>the one above.

Because it was thought that concrete, real world examples of use would
be a beneficial driving force in the design.  This benefit is not
dependent on such real world uses actually changing to use the
resulting specification.

>What is the XML Digital Signature WG's view point about the XForms 1.0
>cf. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/ ? Why is XForms (which is a W3C WD)
>not a SHOULD be supported in the XML Signature requirements document ?

I don't think the XMLDSIG WG has expressed any view on XForms 1.0 and
I don't see why it should.  I don't think that W3C WD existed at the
time the requirements were finalized.  At this time, I don't see any
reason to revise the requirements document. At this point, if people
see a problem with the specification, they should say what it is
rather than trying to diddle the requirements document. If it turns
out they want a change which is supported by the WG and actually
incompatible with the requirements document, then we can worry about
it.

>Thanks for your time.
>
>best regards
>XMLDSig Dev.

Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                    dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Streeet                         lde008@dma.isg.mot.com
 Milford, MA 01757 USA     +1 508-634-2066(h)   +1 508-261-5434(w)

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 08:56:43 UTC