Re: QNameAware and IDAttributes in examples

Regarding the section numbering in Signature 2.0, unless someone objects, I suggest flattening the hierarchy in the examples section. Specifically, I will change the sectioning of the example section from

[[
2. Signature Overview and Examples
	• 2.1 Simple Example (Signature, SignedInfo, Methods, and References)
		• 2.1.1 More on Reference
			• 2.1.1.1 The Simple Example in "2.0 mode"
	• 2.2 Extended Example (Object and SignatureProperty)
	• 2.3 Extended Example (Object and Manifest)
]]

to

[[
2. Signature Overview and Examples
	• 2.1 Simple Example (Signature, SignedInfo, Methods, and References)
	* 2.2 More on Reference
	  2.3The Simple Example in "2.0 mode"
	• 2.4 Extended Example (Object and SignatureProperty)
	• 2.5 Extended Example (Object and Manifest)
]]

There is no need in my opinion for the nesting here.

Regarding the examples, if we work up a new example, any reason to include your original examples as well, Meiko?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 3, 2010, at 9:51 AM, ext Meiko Jensen wrote:

> Regarding my Action-711 I had a look at the latest version of the
> DSig2.0 draft and noticed that the example documents I created
> originally
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Sep/0024.html)
> are not contained. However, I verified both my original versions and the
> example fragments I found in the draft regarding the use of either
> QNameAware or IDAttributes.
> 
> I came to the conclusion that for the given examples both elements are
> used properly whenever they occur, but since there is no example that
> really makes explicit use of their intended functionality, there is no
> real example showing the reader how their use should look like. In other
> words, there is either no ID or no QName-in-content in the examples.
> 
> I recommend adding another full example document to the spec, maybe as
> 2.1.1.2 or 2.4 (weird headline numbering here...). However, I feel that
> I'm not able to come up with such an example on my own - besides the
> ones I already drafted in September, see above.
> 
> I think this should close Action-711 for now, but on the next call we
> should discuss creating and adding a new, more complete example of 2.0
> mode signatures.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Meiko
> 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Inf. Meiko Jensen
> Chair for Network and Data Security 
> Horst Görtz Institute for IT-Security 
> Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
> _____________________________
> Universitätsstr. 150, Geb. ID 2/411
> D-44801 Bochum, Germany
> Phone: +49 (0) 234 / 32-26796
> Telefax: +49 (0) 234 / 32-14347
> http:// www.nds.rub.de
> 
>

Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 19:51:38 UTC