numbering
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures 4.3 If the signatures list is not empty, sort the list of signatures by the file name field in descending order (e.g. signature001.xml followed by signature9.xml followed by signature.xml). How do you sort signature009.xml and signature9.xml? The proposal is to only allow [1-9][0-9]*, which should solve this. And validators should complain about archives containing files of the form signature [0][0-9]* .xml
Re: numbering
Josh, This does not seem quite right since it requires 10 or more signatures? e.g. disallows signature01.xml, signature02.xml etc and requires signature10.xml etc --- I propose the following alternative in section 5.3 Naming convention for a distributor signature:signature [0-9]* .xml Every distributor signature MUST have the same number of digits in the file name and use leading zeros for numbers less than the maximum numeric value. This is to enable consistent sorting. To give an example, if nine distributor signatures are expected the numbers should range from 01 to 09, e.g. signature01.xml to signature09.xml. --- Does this make sense? regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:15 AM, ext timeless wrote: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures 4.3 If the signatures list is not empty, sort the list of signatures by the file name field in descending order (e.g. signature001.xml followed by signature9.xml followed by signature.xml). How do you sort signature009.xml and signature9.xml? The proposal is to only allow [1-9][0-9]*, which should solve this. And validators should complain about archives containing files of the form signature [0][0-9]* .xml
Re: numbering
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:15 AM, I wrote: The proposal is to only allow [1-9][0-9]*, which should solve this. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: This does not seem quite right since it requires 10 or more signatures? e.g. disallows signature01.xml, signature02.xml etc and requires signature10.xml etc I'm not certain about the []* notation. I was hoping for leading non-zero digit and 0 or more digits I propose the following alternative in section 5.3 Naming convention for a distributor signature:signature [0-9]* .xml Every distributor signature MUST have the same number of digits in the file name and use leading zeros for numbers less than the maximum numeric value. This is to enable consistent sorting. To give an example, if nine distributor signatures are expected the numbers should range from 01 to 09, e.g. signature01.xml to signature09.xml. --- Does this make sense? That'd work too, and i suppose would be easier on a sorter since it could do an alpha sort. Although you need to explain what to do if there are only signature01.xml and signature1.xml, does the engine always favor the longest string and ignore all shorter sets? Either way, validators need instructions, for yours it would need to warn about signatures which have the wrong number of digits.
Re: numbering
well I wonder why this regex disallow all multiple of 10 signature10.xml is not possible any more Xmlizer On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: I see, perhaps we can combine the text I proposed with a variant on the bnf you mentioned; signature[0-9]*[1-9].xml and add to my proposal the additional text: If a widget resource contains signatures that are not consistent in the number of digits in the names then the result of ordering will be implementation dependent. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:03 PM, ext timeless wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:15 AM, I wrote: The proposal is to only allow [1-9][0-9]*, which should solve this. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: This does not seem quite right since it requires 10 or more signatures? e.g. disallows signature01.xml, signature02.xml etc and requires signature10.xml etc I'm not certain about the []* notation. I was hoping for leading non-zero digit and 0 or more digits I propose the following alternative in section 5.3 Naming convention for a distributor signature:signature [0-9]* .xml Every distributor signature MUST have the same number of digits in the file name and use leading zeros for numbers less than the maximum numeric value. This is to enable consistent sorting. To give an example, if nine distributor signatures are expected the numbers should range from 01 to 09, e.g. signature01.xml to signature09.xml. --- Does this make sense? That'd work too, and i suppose would be easier on a sorter since it could do an alpha sort. Although you need to explain what to do if there are only signature01.xml and signature1.xml, does the engine always favor the longest string and ignore all shorter sets? Either way, validators need instructions, for yours it would need to warn about signatures which have the wrong number of digits.
