I expect that removing the statement from the namespace document
will resolve the concerns of ATSC and CEA members.

        Thank-you for your quick response to this request.

Andrew Twigger

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [] 
Sent: 08 May 2015 13:55
To: Andrew Twigger
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Frederick Hirsch;
Subject: Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

Andrew - seeing no objections from the group to removing the 
"Implementers ..." statement from [NS] document, if that statement is 
removed, does that address your concern?

-Thanks, ArtB

[NS] <>

On 5/8/15 7:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> [ + Marcos and Frederick ]
> Hi Andrew,
> The group stopped working on XML Digital Signature for Widgets several 
> years ago and there is no plan to resume work (except to process 
> errata as required).
> Marcos, Frederick - this spec's namespace document includes the 
> following statement:
> [[
> <>
> Implementers should be aware that this document is not stable.
> ]]
> Any objections from you or anyone else to remove this statement?
> -Thanks, ArtB
> On 5/7/15 5:55 AM, Andrew Twigger wrote:
>> ATSC and CEA are developing standards that include the ability to 
>> download digital signed applications. Their current specifications 
>> reference the W3C Recommendation for XML Digital Signature for 
>> Widgets (18 April 2013).  However, the associated Widgets Digital 
>> Signature Namespace ( contains a 
>> statement that "Implementers should be aware that this document is 
>> not stable." which has raised questions as to the stability and 
>> suitability of referencing Widget DigSig.  The alternative would be 
>> to reference XAdES with the C and T forms to allow for the inclusion 
>> of timestamp and certificate revocation information which are not 
>> included in Widget DigSig.
>> I would be pleased to receive any information regarding the stability 
>> of Widget DigSig and whether referencing XAdES would provide a better 
>> alternative.
>> Thank-you,
>> Andrew Twigger

Reply via email to