[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Signature Areas
John Messing asks: How would this proposal handle XMLDSIG for security of digital signatures? Inconsistencies between the data in the dsig envelope and the information marked up in the document, is an application-level concern in my opinion. Is this what you're asking ? Thanks, John >Jason wrote: >Surely the signature - whatever elements be used to represent it - goes inside >the grammatical para <p>, given that that's how the author >conceptualised it (as indicated by the text and the colon)? > You're right about this. It must go inside the <p>. Nevertheless, I definitely favor inline elements to represent the essential information for a signature. I do not (presently) favor a formal container element for the inline signature elements. >If you say that it doesn't, then isn't this a first exception to the >idea that a grammatical para encapsulates things which are >conceptually part of it? (And just another indication of the >trouble the grammatical para causes ;) ) > >cheers, > >Jason > > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >of the OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/member >s/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]