[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] DSIG proposal - FYI - Root Element - IMPORTANT!
Woops, that's an OpenOffice.org-specific namespace that you mention as being in the package specification! If that's the legacy implementation, I think we are excused out of the box with <document-signatures xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:digitalsignature:1.0"> (corrected to use :office: or a resolvable URL if required by OASIS) as used in the current Package specification draft section 2.4 and in the dsig schema file. I was concerned that there were implementations using an ODF-specified namespace already. I should have paid more attention to the URI in your remark about <document-signatures>. I think we should go with what 17.5 has said and what Package Draft section 2.6 does say about IRIs in files of the package. (The manifest:full-path attribute is not of type IRI, anyURI or anything like that, so that is its escape clause, an appropriate one for the special case of the manifest.) - Dennis PS: Even if the OpenOffice.org-specific namespace and dsig files are being used in OpenOffice.org 3.0, they are implementation-specific and not covered by the ODF 1.2 specification or any use of office:version="1.2", I say. There is a safe way to differentiate that implementation from an ODF 1.2 one in some future OO.o release. I am assuming that the current implementations do not use the ODF namespace. Am I mistaken? (I also think that the adjustment between and even dual support of the two implementations is not that difficult, but I really can't speak for the OO.o team. Please tell me that the OASIS namespace for <document-signatures> isn't already being used in OO.o documents.) -----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00024.html Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:29 To: 'office TC' Cc: 'Jomar Silva'; 'Bob Jolliffe' Subject: RE: [office] DSIG proposal - FYI - Root Element Bob, I misunderstood the FYI note about simplification of the ODF DSIG proposal. I didn't realize the schema for <document-signatures xmlns="http://openoffice.org/2004/documentsignatures"> (and logical equivalents) was still being proposed. I will re-examine on that basis. - Dennis PS: I apologize for missing sny discussion of this proposal on the call. Alarm-clock pilot error. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Jolliffe [mailto:bobjolliffe@gmail.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00015.html Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 05:27 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: office TC; Jomar Silva Subject: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - FYI Hi Dennis 2009/1/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00012.html [ ... ] > 2. References to Signed Material > 2.1 In this specification, detached signatures are found in XML documents > of the packages META-INF folder. In the simplified proposal, there is no > specified name, but one can expect that they are of MIME type > application/XML and the root element is <ds:Signature > xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> (or logical equivalent). Root element is actually: <document-signatures xmlns="http://openoffice.org/2004/documentsignatures"> which in turn contains ds:Signature children. See section 2.4 of part 3 (packaging). What is not specified is the mimetype of the signatures file. I suppose that should be done. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]