Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Arthur Barstow]

On 5/11/15 4:23 AM, Andrew Twigger wrote:

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


Andrew - the warning has been removed.

-ArtB




Thank-you for your quick response to this request.

Andrew Twigger

-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 May 2015 13:55
To: Andrew Twigger
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Frederick Hirsch; public-webapps@w3.org
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] <http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/>

RE: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Andrew Twigger]

Art,

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 [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 08 May 2015 13:55
To: Andrew Twigger
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Frederick Hirsch; public-webapps@w3.org
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] <http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/>

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:
>
> [[
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/>
>
> 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 (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 
>> alternative.
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>> Andrew Twigger
>>
>

[widgets] implementation data [Was: Re: Stability of Widget DigSig]

[Arthur Barstow]

On 5/8/15 8:52 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:

On 2015-05-08 14:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 5/8/15 8:47 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:

On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/


This seems to be a rather theoretical discussion:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/High-Level_APIs/widget


FYI, the usage of "widget" in widgets-digsig is not at all related to
the use of "widget" in the MDN resource reference above.


Just for my understanding, is the W3C Widget TR generally supported then?


See 

-AB

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Marcos Caceres]

On Friday, May 8, 2015, Anders Rundgren 
wrote:

> On 2015-05-08 14:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/15 8:47 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>>>
 no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

 http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/

>>>
>>> This seems to be a rather theoretical discussion:
>>>
>>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/High-Level_APIs/widget
>>>
>>
>> FYI, the usage of "widget" in widgets-digsig is not at all related to
>> the use of "widget" in the MDN resource reference above.
>>
>
> Just for my understanding, is the W3C Widget TR generally supported then?


Yes. For example, PhoneGap/Cordova which is used to target every platform.


>
> Anders
>
>
>
>> -AB
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Arthur Barstow]

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 (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 
alternative.


Thank-you,

Andrew Twigger

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Anders Rundgren]

On 2015-05-08 14:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 5/8/15 8:47 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:

On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/


This seems to be a rather theoretical discussion:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/High-Level_APIs/widget


FYI, the usage of "widget" in widgets-digsig is not at all related to
the use of "widget" in the MDN resource reference above.


Just for my understanding, is the W3C Widget TR generally supported then?

Anders




-AB

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Arthur Barstow]

On 5/8/15 8:47 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:

On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/


This seems to be a rather theoretical discussion:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/High-Level_APIs/widget


FYI, the usage of "widget" in widgets-digsig is not at all related to 
the use of "widget" in the MDN resource reference above.


-AB

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Anders Rundgren]

On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/


This seems to be a rather theoretical discussion:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/High-Level_APIs/widget

Anders



regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

Chair XML Security WG

fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch


On May 8, 2015, at 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 
(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 alternative.

Thank-you,

Andrew Twigger

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Frederick Hirsch]

no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

Chair XML Security WG

fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

> On May 8, 2015, at 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 
>> (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 
>> alternative.
>> 
>> Thank-you,
>> 
>> Andrew Twigger
>> 
> 

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Marcos Caceres]

On Friday, May 8, 2015, 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?


None. It's stable.




>
> -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 (
>> 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
>> alternative.
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>> Andrew Twigger
>>
>>
>

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Arthur Barstow]

[ + 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 (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 
alternative.


Thank-you,

Andrew Twigger