OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

While working on adding a Digital Signatures specification to ODF 1.2, I
stumbled over the fact that I need to know if a document is v1.2 or
older, because the specification is a little bit different to the
implementation we have right now in OpenOffice.org.

Of course I can add the version info to the signatures stream, but I
wonder if this isn't something that should be available "globally" via
META-INF?

Malte.

On 17/08/07, Malte Timmermann 

Hi Dave,

Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 17/08/07, Malte Timmermann 

On 20/08/07, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg

Sorry to be unclear.

I didn't mean meta data. With "meta inf" I meant META-INF/manifest.xml.

And yes, I also don't think that different streams should/would have
different versions.

IMHO manifest.xml. should be a central place for such information, since
it will never become encrypted

Malte.


Dave Pawson wrote, On 08/20/07 09:58:
> On 20/08/07, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> 

After some more discussions on this:

It seems one central place for the version number is not a good idea.

Main reason: OLE objects. When having ODF OLE objects, the streams are
also listed in the manifest.xml, but the objects might use an other ODF
version.

Malte.

Malte Timmermann wrote, On 08/20/07 10:34:
> Sorry to be unclear.
>
> I didn't mean meta data. With "meta inf" I meant META-INF/manifest.xml.
>
> And yes, I also don't think that different streams should/would have
> different versions.
>
> IMHO manifest.xml. should be a central place for such information, since
> it will never become encrypted
>
> Malte.
>
>
> Dave Pawson wrote, On 08/20/07 09:58:
>   
>> On 20/08/07, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
>> 

On 20/08/07, Malte Timmermann 

They are *NOT* OS specific, if they are ODF.

Maybe I better call them "embedded objects", not OLE, for avoiding
further confusion...

Malte.

Dave Pawson wrote, On 08/20/07 17:36:
> On 20/08/07, Malte Timmermann 

They are actually called "embedded objects" or just "objects" in the ODF 
specification, so everything should be fine here.

Malte, is my understanding correct that you propose to add the version 
attribute we have for the content, style, meta and setting streams also 
for the digital signatures stream?

Best regards

Michael

Malte Timmermann wrote:
> They are *NOT* OS specific, if they are ODF.
> 
> Maybe I better call them "embedded objects", not OLE, for avoiding
> further confusion...
> 
> Malte.
> 
> Dave Pawson wrote, On 08/20/07 17:36:
>> On 20/08/07, Malte Timmermann 

On 8/23/07, Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> wrote:

They are actually called "embedded objects" or just "objects" in the ODF
specification, so everything should be fine here.

Malte, is my understanding correct that you propose to add the version
attribute we have for the content, style, meta and setting streams also
for the digital signatures stream?

Perhaps you might remove my confusion here, Michael. I know that the nations represented at the Open Document Exchange formats specifically requested that ODF be modified to add electronic signature support, but I seem to find nothing on the subject of electronic signatures in ODF 
1.2 draft 5. Have the electronic signature features been inadvertently omitted from that draft?

Best regards,

Marbux

Marbux,
 
Have a look in the wiki:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument_v1%2e2_Action_Items
The Digital Signature Proposal is listed under "Approved Proposals"
which is separate from the "Proposal integrated into the specification
document" list, so that means it hasn't been integrated into the latest
draft yet.
In the "Proposal integrated into the specification document" list you
can see which version has each proposal been integrated into.
 
- Uri
 

On 8/24/07 marbux 

Thank you, Uri.

On 8/23/07, Uri Resnitzky <Uri@arx.com> wrote:

Marbux,

Have a look in the wiki:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument_v1%2e2_Action_Items
The Digital Signature Proposal is listed under "Approved Proposals"
which is separate from the "Proposal integrated into the specification
document" list, so that means it hasn't been integrated into the latest
draft yet.
In the "Proposal integrated into the specification document" list you
can see which version has each proposal been integrated into.

- Uri


On 8/24/07 marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps you might remove my confusion here, Michael. I know that the
nations represented at the Open Document Exchange formats specifically
requested that ODF be modified to add electronic signature support, but
I seem to find nothing on the subject of electronic signatures in ODF
1.2 draft 5. Have the electronic signature features been inadvertently
omitted from that draft?

        Best regards,

        Marbux

Michael Brauer wrote, On 08/23/07 16:06:
> Malte, is my understanding correct that you propose to add the version 
> attribute we have for the content, style, meta and setting streams also 
> for the digital signatures stream?
>   
Yes.

Malte.

On 24/08/07, Malte Timmermann 

All:

Sorry if this is a daft question.  Has anybody done analysis to determine if
the schema/instance packaging structure allows someone to write a conforming
application capable of encrypting a document yet leave the metadata
unencrypted?

Duane


On 8/20/07 12:50 AM, "Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg"