ISSUE-72: DTD required for v1.1 or v.next of XML Signature?
DTD required for v1.1 or v.next of XML Signature?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- free
- Raised by:
- Frederick Hirsch
- Opened on:
- 2008-11-06
- Description:
- Do we need to provide a DTD for XML Signature v1.1 or v.next? Is there a W3C policy related to providing DTDs with Recommendations? ( I did not see this topic in the W3C process or member guide documents, but may have missed it).
If a specification update is in the same namespace, and the previous version had a DTD, should the update continue to have a DTD and if it does not - would this be confusing or a problem. If it does, can the DTD have additions or changes. For a v.next, breaking changes are allowed, so it seems a DTD should no longer be required, but what is the current best practice?
This question arose because there appear to be some issues related to adding new algorithms - I expect there will be more detail on the list regarding this topic.
Would anyone have a concern if no DTD were defined going forward, for v.next? What about v1.1?
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Draft minutes for 12/2 (from cantor.2@osu.edu on 2008-12-02)
- Agenda: Distributed meeting 2008-12-02 v3 (from frederick.hirsch@nokia.com on 2008-12-02)
- Agenda: Distributed meeting 2008-12-02 v2 (from frederick.hirsch@nokia.com on 2008-12-01)
- requirement for DTDs (from frederick.hirsch@nokia.com on 2008-11-10)
- ISSUE-72: DTD required for v1.1 or v.next of XML Signature? [v.next (Design for XML Signature V Next)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-11-06)
Related notes:
XML Coordination group noted that no requirement to provide DTD, up to Working Group, but noted that some parties rely on DTDs and therefore it would be preferable to provide one if possible.
Frederick Hirsch, 10 Nov 2008, 20:35:09Display change log
