RE: [office] DSIG proposal - FYI - Root Element - IMPORTANT!

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Woops, that's an OpenOffice.org-specific namespace that you mention as being
in the package specification!  If that's the legacy implementation, I think
we are excused out of the box with 

<document-signatures
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:digitalsignature:1.0"> 

(corrected to use :office: or a resolvable URL if required by OASIS) as used
in the current Package specification draft section 2.4 and in the dsig
schema file.  I was concerned that there were implementations using an
ODF-specified namespace already.  I should have paid more attention to the
URI in your remark about <document-signatures>.

I think we should go with what 17.5 has said and what Package Draft section
2.6 does say about IRIs in files of the package.  (The manifest:full-path
attribute is not of type IRI, anyURI or anything like that, so that is its
escape clause, an appropriate one for the special case of the manifest.)

 - Dennis

PS: Even if the OpenOffice.org-specific namespace and dsig files are being
used in OpenOffice.org 3.0, they are implementation-specific and not covered
by the ODF 1.2 specification or any use of office:version="1.2", I say.
There is a safe way to differentiate that implementation from an ODF 1.2 one
in some future OO.o release.  I am assuming that the current implementations
do not use the ODF namespace.  Am I mistaken?  (I also think that the
adjustment between and even dual support of the two implementations is not
that difficult, but I really can't speak for the OO.o team.  Please tell me
that the OASIS namespace for <document-signatures> isn't already being used
in OO.o documents.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00024.html
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:29
To: 'office TC'
Cc: 'Jomar Silva'; 'Bob Jolliffe'
Subject: RE: [office] DSIG proposal - FYI - Root Element

Bob, I misunderstood the FYI note about simplification of the ODF DSIG
proposal.  

I didn't realize the schema for <document-signatures
xmlns="http://openoffice.org/2004/documentsignatures";> (and logical
equivalents) was still being proposed.  I will re-examine on that basis.

 - Dennis 

PS: I apologize for missing sny discussion of this proposal on the call.
Alarm-clock pilot error.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Jolliffe [mailto:bobjolliffe@gmail.com] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00015.html
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 05:27
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: office TC; Jomar Silva
Subject: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - FYI

Hi Dennis

2009/1/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00012.html
[ ... ]
> 2. References to Signed Material
>   2.1 In this specification, detached signatures are found in XML
documents
> of the packages META-INF folder.  In the simplified proposal, there is no
> specified name, but one can expect that they are of MIME type
> application/XML and the root element is <ds:Signature
> xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";> (or logical equivalent).

Root element is actually:
<document-signatures xmlns="http://openoffice.org/2004/documentsignatures";>

which in turn contains ds:Signature children.  See section 2.4 of part
3 (packaging).  What is not specified is the mimetype of the
signatures file.  I suppose that should be done.

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php