Re: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core.

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 11:30 PM 5/10/2004 -0400, ed.shallow@rogers.com wrote:
>Yeah, looks pretty good. See minor tweaks inter-mixed.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Trevor Perrin" <trevp@trevp.net>
> >
> > Okay, I think I got it.  These are the changes I'll make, unless someone
> > objects:
> > [...]
> > If an error occurs verifying multiple
> > signatures, the first error will be returned.
>We should invite implementations to explore the InvalidDetail unbounded
>element of ProcessingDetails if they wish to return error information on 2nd
>and subsequent signatures.

Do you mean "profiles" instead of "implementations"?


> >The server should first check any <ds:Reference/@URI> that may be present
> >against each Input Document's RefURI, and if a
> > match is not found, then try to resolve barename XPointers against the
> > signature's Input Document or Signature Object.
>It was for this reason that I wanted to collapse SignatureObject,
>SignaturePtr, and WhichDocument into simpler constructs within a tweaked
>InputDocument structure. Given what we are doing, it improves readability.
>I'll defer to the will of the majority though.

That's what I was alluding to Friday, that having a combination of 
old-style Input Documents URI matching & new-style server-processing of 
XPointers is kinda messy.  But I'm not sure we've got the energy or 
patience for a redesign, and as Nick points out profiles can simplify 
processing if they want.  So I'll just go ahead with these changes, for now.

Trevor