[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Digital signature proposal
Uri, I have read through your suggestion, and it seem to me that if one would specify a visual signature as described by you, it still would be an extension of the current proposal. Do you agree? Michael Uri Resnitzky wrote: > Michael, > > Michael Brauer wrote: >> A visual signature would be an extension of the current >> proposal, but would not have an influence on that proposal >> itself. I therefore think we should discuss this separately. > > Supporting visual signature does influence your original proposal in the > way the XML d-sig <Signature> element is built: > When a document needs to be signed by two persons, when the second > signature is added, its visual appearance markup cannot be directly > added to the document content, because that would invalidate the first > signature. > The solution for this is to store the markup for the visual appearance > of each signature in an <Object> element of the <Signature> object in > the META-INF/documentsignatures.xml file, instead of putting it in the > document content.xml. > The <SignedInfo> element of each such <Signature> object must include a > <Reference> element to the visual appearance markup <Object> for that > signature. > The content.xml will only have a placeholder (the signature control I > suggested), and we can require the application to display this control > using the markup found in the <Object> of the corresponding <Signature> > (if it is signed). > > Thanks, > > - Uri -- Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering StarOffice/OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]