- From: Martin Lee <m.lee@andtech.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:26:40 +0100
- To: "'XML-sig group'" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>
Thanks for the replies, I agree that this working group is not necessarily the place to decide on a set of standard vocabulary. I'm glad there is at least the suggestion of a separate WG to address this. I'd like to underline Bede McCall's point that not all signatures are going to be by people for a legally binding contract. In this case, if the contract cant be displayed on the screen in an unambiguous way, then it needs to be re-written. But there are more applications where digital signatures can be used, and areas where it is not appropriate for the signer to endorse the data signed. - to extend the example from the intelligence world, a digital stamp to say the information has been delivered to the relevant department, or a signature to say the information has been read by someone important. To prevent developers, and the public, making the mistake that a digitally signing a document means 'I am legally and irrecoverably agreeing with the signed data', I believe it needs to be stated in the specification that signatures can mean different things in different environments and the context or meaning of the signature can be described in the attribute block. Martin Martin Lee AND Data Ltd. Oxford UK
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 1999 09:27:21 UTC