[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Removing ds elements from schema (was: OpenID Delegating relationship in XRD)
Will Norris wrote on 2009-09-08: > I'm actually really interested in pursuing this a bit more as well. > It would allow us to use the original content model we had, but in a > way that works with XSD. Interestingly, if we don't include the ds:* > elements as part of the XRD schema, it would solve the problem we had > with RelaxNG since there is no longer a schema dependence on XML > DSig. (Not that I'm necessarily advocating a switch back to RelaxNG > at this point). Sorry I didn't think of it originally. I imagine it wouldn't be all that hard to get one written based on the original one. > The other big question is the placement of ds:Signature. I completely > understand Scott's argument for placing it higher up in the document. > This change we're discussing would mean that the Signature could now > appear anywhere in the document. Scott, how much of a concern is this > really? It's not only that, it's also limiting the number to one. While it sometimes comes up to support multiple signatures, that's somewhat complex in practice (because of signature ordering). > The idea of placing it higher is so that XML processors would > know early on if they needed to be doing canonicalization. How many > processors actually alter their behavior in the presence of the > Signature element in this way? It's for streaming implementations. > I'm fairly certain the Java version of > XML-Tooling does not. How about the C version? We're exclusively DOM-based, so we don't care. > We could always > recommend that XRD providers place the Signature element higher up in > the document. True. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]