[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core.
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]