Gentlemen,
I don't remember Bart's suggestion for strengthening the wording on XaDeS use having been discussed yet, though we did talk about the RNG schema in the TC meeting two weeks ago.
Over the last 6th months or more there has been an increasing interest in not only XaDeS, but the other ETSI dig sig work as well. The next version of the main PDF standard (ISO 32000-2) as well as the newest PDF/A version (ISO 19005-2) both include support for PaDes. While 32000-2 isn't expected to publish until sometime in 2011, 19005-2 has gone out for DIS vote and will likely be published sometime in fall 2010.
Changing from a may to a should in ODF 1.2 seems like a small but important way that we can acknowledge in the increasing push for XaDeS.
Cherie
Original Message-----
From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:28 PM
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; 'Dave Pawson'; 'Patrick Durusau'
Cc: 'Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg'; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Two JIRA Issues for discussion
And emphasize XAdES (ETSI TS 101 903)
(1.2 part 3 mentions it briefly in a note, "may implement", I'd rather make that a "should")
At least in Europe, governments really want to have XAdES implemented
(and we're issuing millions of eID cards for filling out tax forms and legally sign documents)
Best regards,
Bart
________________________________________
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:06 PM
To: 'Dave Pawson'; 'Patrick Durusau'
Cc: 'Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg'; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Two JIRA Issues for discussion
My sense of this is that we have done something very strange.
In Part 3, there is a standalone RNG schema for an XML document that has an ODF Dsigs list as its root element. The only element in the content of this root element is one more W3Cdsig:dsig elements (that is, W3C XML DSigs).
Because the trivial root element is specified in RNG, we have the problem that we have chosen to have no schema for the W3Cdsig:dsig XML element, and we allow any content on that element instead. (And it is done in an ugly way, but I won't go into that. I will point out that IS 29500 offers both Relax NG and XML Schema schemas and they seem to have found some sort of transliteration that preserves the schematic essence in both directions.)
Clearly, a way to have a precise specification would be to have this trivial standalone XML document schema be done in XML Schema in the first place. Then it can incorporate W3Cdsig:dsig by reference to the XML Schema for it.
Alternatively, get rid of the multi-signature wrapper (not sure what value it is since any number of separate signature files are permitted and a component of the multi-signature wrapper will have a hard time self-signing without screwing something up), and simply allow dsig:dsig (W3C dsig binding) root elements on the ODF 1.2 Part 3 digital signature documents.
Short-term problem solved either way. Choose your poison.
There is a lot more needed to have ODF 1.2 DSig be well-specified. With the schema resolved, we might turn our attention to that more substantial matter of how XML Dsig is profiled for ODF 1.2. (The original proposal accepted by the ODF TC over a year ago is somehow not reflected in ODF 1.2 Part 3 and ODF 1.2 Part 1 anywhere. There was a lot more profiling of XML DSig that someone thought was important, and that the TC accepted, and now it is nowhere to be seen.)
- Dennis
Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 08:37
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Two JIRA Issues for discussion
On 19 February 2010 16:19, Patrick Durusau