- From: Amir Herzberg <AMIR@newgenpay.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:03:25 +0300
- To: "'Dournaee, Blake'" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, "Dsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Blake replied to me: > I believe the notation in the XML dsig draft comes from the XML 1.0 > Recommendation. See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml, Section 6. > The notation used is quite standard and is a simplified EBNF grammar. Thanks! I'm familiar with EBNF and noticed similarity. But, the DSIG notation in 2.0 does not follow the simplified EBNF you refered to, as far as I can tell. I also didn't see similar usage within http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml. In the DSIG usage, there isn't a strict definition, and some elements are refered to using XML tags and syntax (e.g. <SignedInfo>, <Reference>) while others are within parenthesis instead of brackets (e.g. (DigestValue)), without their internal elements, etc. This makes a useful intuitive, simplified presentation (compared e.g. to looking directly at the schemas), which I like. However, I still wonder if this is a well known and defined format. Thanks, Amir
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 05:04:00 UTC