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.
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 May 2015 13:55
To: Andrew Twigger
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Frederick Hirsch; email@example.com
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?
On 5/8/15 7:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ + Marcos and Frederick ]
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
Implementers should be aware that this document is not stable.
Any objections from you or anyone else to remove this statement?
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 (http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/) 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