Re: [office] DSIG proposal - URI vs.

["Bob Jolliffe" <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>]

Hi Michael

2009/1/6 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
<Michael.Brauer@sun.com>:
> Bob, Dennis,
>
> On 06.01.09 13:54, Bob Jolliffe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dennis
>>
>> 2009/1/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
>
>>> 3. SUGGESTION: In this case I would recommend using the definition of
>>> 17.5
>>> (which is in the package section for ODF 1.1 and which still needs to be
>>> cleaned up to resolve some defect-report concerns) with the modification
>>> that "/" is the root of the package and not of the directory containing
>>> the
>>> package.  (It is important not to have to know the filename of the
>>> package
>>> in order to refer to it.)
>>
>> Current implementations use the following convention for the
>> <ds:Reference> URL attribute:
>>  <Reference URI="content.xml">
>>  <Reference URI="Thumbnails/thumbnails.png">
>>
>> The discussion is about the Base URI to be used rather than the root.
>
> I agree. The question is whether we use the URI that was used to retrieve
> the package as base URI, or that URI with "/META-INF" appended. So, we
> indeed could take everything we say in 17.5, but only adapt the base URI
> that is used.
>
>
>> If there were no existing implementations, then I would have suggested
>> the same as you.  But there are and it doesn't make sense to make a
>
> Well, independent of what is implemented, I think there could be reasons to
> use the URI that was used to retrieve the package as base URI, although the
> files are in the META-INF folder. The signature files like the manifest.xml
> are information that make up the package. That they are stored in a folder
> META-INF can be considered to be an implementation detail of the package. We
> could have stored this information in some other place (which is not a
> folder in the zip files) if zip files would allow us to do so. I would not
> prefer this actually, because having the package related information in a
> META-INF folder makes that information accessible and is consistent with JAR
> files. I'm only mentioning this to point out how the signature information
> differs from let's say information in content.xml.
>
> So, what I actually could imagine is that we modify 17.5 by adding that
> these rules also apply to files in the META-INF folder (in general, and not
> only for digital signature files), except that the base URI to use there is
> the one that was used to retrieve the package.

This works for me.  All I am looking for is something clean and
unambiguous.  Setting the base URI for relative URI's in all files in
the META-INF folder solves the problem.

Regards
Bob

> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
>           D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
>