|Bob Jolliffe||Dec 12, 2008 1:08 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 4, 2009 10:59 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 5, 2009 5:26 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 5, 2009 6:42 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 5, 2009 10:28 am|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 5, 2009 1:24 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 5, 2009 3:02 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 6, 2009 4:54 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 6, 2009 5:48 am|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 6, 2009 6:12 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 6, 2009 1:11 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 6, 2009 1:56 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 7, 2009 2:17 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 7, 2009 12:21 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 7, 2009 1:34 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 7, 2009 2:06 pm|
|Jomar Silva||Jan 7, 2009 2:36 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 7, 2009 3:48 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 7, 2009 4:45 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 7, 2009 6:00 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 8, 2009 2:00 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 8, 2009 8:27 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 8, 2009 10:52 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 8, 2009 10:53 am|
|Svante Schubert||Jan 8, 2009 11:57 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 8, 2009 2:47 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 8, 2009 4:16 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 11, 2009 2:48 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 11, 2009 6:41 pm|
|Bob Jolliffe||Jan 12, 2009 1:09 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 12, 2009 1:37 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 12, 2009 8:25 am|
|Subject:||RE: [office] DSIG proposal - URIs, Packages, and Namespaces - Proposal|
|From:||Dennis E. Hamilton (denn...@acm.org)|
|Date:||Jan 7, 2009 4:45:54 pm|
I feel really thick-headed. I wandered all over the place because of the "existing implementations" concern, when the answer is right in front of us. Here is my understanding of the appropriate resolution:
1. The introduction of the ODF usage of xml-dsig will be via the proposed namespace and the xml-dsig namespace, as currently specified in the schemas for the DSIG proposal:
1.1 The ODF 1.2 namespace for ODF DSIG will be "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:digitalsignature:1.0".
1.2 The xml-dsig namespace is "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
1.3 For example, the element introduced by the tag
introduces a DSIG in accordance with the ODF 1.2 specification.
2. The interpretation of URIs within a <DSIG:document-signatures> in an ODF package subfile will be as prescribed in section 2.6 of draft 6 of the ODF 1.2 Package specification. (This is equivalent to section 17.5 of earlier specifications, and clarification in response to the SC34 defect report will not impact DSIG.) There might be additional restrictions on the forms of URI that are usable, but the restriction must not conflict with the rules for interpretation of URIs and the additional rules already incorporated in section 2.6. That is, the URI value can be used correctly without knowledge of the restrictions on providing such a value.
3. IN THE EVENT that usage of namespace "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:digitalsignature:1.0" already exists in documents produced by existing software, the ODF 1.2 specification will choose a different namespace (e.g., "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:digitalsignature:1.0") and maybe, just to be safe, we should change it anyhow.
That's it. That's how we avoid any confusion with an existing implementation that uses a private namespace (as in OO.o 2.4) or one that has already employed the originally-proposed ODF DSIG namespace (in 1.1, above). By making sure that an existing implementation will not be using the approved ODF DSIG namespace, there is room to recognize the difference in implementation and for the product-specific legacy forms to be distinguished and dealt with appropriately by products that are implemented to do so.
-----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:denn...@acm.org] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00050.html Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 13:35 To: 'office TC' Cc: 'Jomar Silva'; 'Bob Jolliffe'; Michael Brauer 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
(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.)
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.)
[ ... ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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