| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jomar Silva | Jul 11, 2008 9:59 am | |
| Bob Jolliffe | Jul 12, 2008 7:09 am | |
| robe...@us.ibm.com | Jul 13, 2008 12:12 pm | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 13, 2008 12:35 pm | |
| Bob Jolliffe | Jul 27, 2008 1:27 pm | |
| Ming Fei Jia | Jul 30, 2008 4:02 am | .gif, .gif, .gif, 8 more |
| Bob Jolliffe | Jul 30, 2008 4:52 am | |
| Jomar Silva | Jul 30, 2008 9:01 am | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 30, 2008 9:13 am | |
| Dave Pawson | Jul 30, 2008 9:40 am | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 30, 2008 9:51 am | |
| Dave Pawson | Jul 30, 2008 10:28 am | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 30, 2008 10:49 am | |
| Ming Fei Jia | Jul 31, 2008 9:17 am | .gif, .gif, .gif, 13 more |
| Dave Pawson | Jul 31, 2008 9:56 am | |
| Jomar Silva | Jul 31, 2008 10:32 am | |
| Bob Jolliffe | Jul 31, 2008 10:42 am | |
| Dave Pawson | Jul 31, 2008 11:41 am | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 31, 2008 11:47 am | |
| robe...@us.ibm.com | Jul 31, 2008 2:43 pm | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 31, 2008 2:54 pm | |
| Jomar Silva | Jul 31, 2008 3:15 pm | |
| Duane Nickull | Jul 31, 2008 3:32 pm | |
| Ming Fei Jia | Jul 31, 2008 10:53 pm | .gif, .gif, .gif, 6 more |
| Dee Schur | Aug 1, 2008 7:05 am | |
| Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg | Aug 8, 2008 5:57 am | |
| Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg | Aug 8, 2008 6:06 am | |
| Dave Pawson | Aug 8, 2008 6:11 am | |
| Bob Jolliffe | Aug 8, 2008 7:06 am | |
| Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg | Aug 11, 2008 4:49 am | |
| Bob Jolliffe | Aug 12, 2008 12:57 am |
| Subject: | Re: [office] Digital Signature proposal | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Dave Pawson (dave...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Aug 8, 2008 6:11:56 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.office | |
2008/8/8 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Mich...@sun.com>:
I agree. When talking about requirements I think it is important that we differ between the file format itself and applications. ODF should be able to store signatures that meet the Brazilian requirements, but as well should be able to store signatures that meet the requirements of let's say the US or China. But an application that is used let's say in Brazil has not to be capable of creating a signature that meets the Japanese requirements, nor does it has to be capable of verifying the signature of a document that has been signed in Japan.
In particular, from the few experience I have with the topic, I assume that there is not a signature that meets all local requirements that do exist in the world. We therefore need a lot of flexibility within the file format. The question is whether the flexibility that XML DSig provides is sufficient.
Or a 'workaround/get-out'? If an application can determine that the means of signing is not supported the user can be informed (e.g. This was signed in xXX using YYY) and appropriate action taken. The appropriate action is then into the application/usage area.
The key point to me is that digSig be usable and interoperable, without lock-in.
regards
-- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk






.gif, .gif, .gif, 8 more