Re: XProc and XML Signature/Encryption

Here’s one idea that might help a bit, at least regarding XML Signature.
The XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG is working on a Best
Practices document.  My summary of the document would go something like
this:  Yes, there’s a 100 ways to sign an XML document, and the
recommendation lets you do all of them.  But in practice you should probably
only use these 10 or so.  So if XProc wants to implement XML Signature
stuff, maybe you could just limit XProc to the best practices stuff.  Maybe
that would simplify life.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily make the libraries any easier to use.
:-)

James Garriss
http://garriss.blogspot.com




From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:25:30 -0400
To: James Garriss <james@garriss.org>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Subject: Re: XProc and XML Signature/Encryption
Resent-From: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:26:13 +0000

James Garriss <james@garriss.org> writes:

> I found this short and recent conversation between Norm Walsh and Frederick
> Hirsch.  
>
> http://markmail.org/message/yvtjvzhmm3dlfien
>
> I¹m curious to know if it bore any fruit.  Will the XProc recommendation
> include steps for signing and encrypting XML?  Are there plans to add such
> steps to Calabash?

That's still being discussed. I think it's possible that XML encryption and
decryption steps will be added to XProc, but nothing's been decided yet.

Whether they're added to the spec or not, I'd be happy to add them to
Calabash, if I could ever figure out how to use any of the XML
encryption/decryption libraries. I've tried a couple of times, for
other projects, and always been left totally stumped.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Talk as if you were making your will:
http://nwalsh.com/            | the fewer the words the less the
                              | litigation.-- Gracián