Re: [dss-x] Visual Document Signatures

[Stefan Drees <stefan@drees.name>]

Dear Uri,
> "Uri Resnitzky" <Uri@arx.com> wrote on 20070805T194629+0200:
> ...
> Please find attached ARX's contribution towards a profile for visual
> document signatures.
> The attached document is by no means complete or fully specified - it
> should be viewed as a basis for further discussions.
> Please start by reading section 3 which describes some of the key
> aspects of the proposed profile as well as motivations and use cases.

I consider this a very good start for us into the analysis of what should be 
included in such a profile and what should be better separated into 
different profiles.

Some adhoc feedback (probably a bit superficial) from me:

<document date='20070805' id='oasis-dss-profiles-visual-document-signatures-wd-01.pdf'>
<location>
<input>4.1.1.5 Optional Input &lt;ReturnPDFTailOnly&gt</input>
<feedback date='20070806' origin='sdrees' id='DomainSpecific'>If the Profile targets at PDF, ODF and OOXML, 
it MAY be a better choice to embed client format specific information elements 
into an extra (optional) container. In a then second level, the profile may have elements 
bearing specialized names of importance to only one specific processing 
hierarchie/chain. This may result in parsing efficiency, where the file-format-specific parsers are only used 
inside "the processing of" the "Here_MAY_be_file_format_specific_settings_inside"-Container
</feedback>
</location>


<location>
<input>4.1.1.6 Optional Input &lt;GraphicImageName&gt;</input>
<feedback  date='20070806' origin='sdrees' id='NameOrID_01'>
I expect some discussions here, clarifying two problems (as far as I can see) 
1. Is it a Name or is it an ID (unique name [plus conventions]) and 
if it is a kind of ID (I assume this from context): who has enough information 
to know and/or select from such a set of IDs.
This is not necessarily the task of the profile, but it may render using the profile 
problematic if not taking it into account. I picture this as the usual problem, 
when many end-users have to choose among signatures, addresses and the like 
while using applications, that try to display "stuff partially but nicely" ...
</feedback>
</location>


<location>
<input>4.1.1.7 Optional Input &lt;SignatureFieldName&gt;</input>
<feedback  date='20070806' origin='sdrees' id='NameOrID_02'>
This is only listed separately for taking into account, that a "funny picture" 
as someone put this may be of complete different meaning as compared to 
a CMS or XML Signature.
Besides this, please see also feedback with regard to 
"4.1.1.6 Optional Input &lt;GraphicImageName&gt;".
</feedback>
</location>

<location>
<input>4.1.1.9 Optional Input &lt;GMTOffset&gt;</input>
<feedback  date='20070806' origin='sdrees' id='ServerTimeOffsetUTC'>
At a minimum I would suggest the nowadays correct UTC (Universal Time Coordinated) 
in exchange with GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). 
What I would personally tend to name it, would be more along the 
lines of &lt;ServerTimeUTCOffset&gt;, to emphasize the intended impact 
in the processing.
</feedback>
</location>
</document>


ALl the best,
Stefan Drees.