- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:23:19 -0400
- To: "Paul Lambert" <plambert@certicom.com>
- Cc: w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org
[Note: there is no need to quote my original message, all messages are
archived at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-xml-sig-ws/ ]
At 11:56 AM 4/22/99 -0700, Paul Lambert wrote:
>>We can't place restrictions on a syntax, ...
>
>Humm ... how do we develop a standard without any restrictions? How can
>we generate conformance tests?
We need restrictions, I'm merely stating that we may not be able to restrict
some things, and we should be clear at what level we are
specifying/constraining. For instance, if you were to say signed-XML is just
like XML but XYZ, that would get torpedoed pretty quickly because it
wouldn't be XML anymore. (We've encountered this with applications of XML
defining their syntax in BNF which might be ok, but can get sort of hairy if
it excludes permissible XML features...) I think one could potentially be
specifying/constraining at numerous levels:
1. Syntax - strings/bits
2. Semantics - meaning
3. Syntax/Semantic defense - requirements to ignore or repulse intrusion on
your own syntax/semantic.
4. State machine (of a protocol.)
5. APIs
6. Default values (protocol suites)
7. Application behavior, requirements, or constraints.
People frequently confuse these things.
___________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C: http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Policy Analyst Personal: http://web.mit.edu/reagle/www/
mailto:reagle@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 15:23:23 UTC