Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

2015-05-11 Thread 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

2015-05-11 Thread 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








Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

2015-05-08 Thread 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:


[[
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






Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

2015-05-08 Thread 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 art.bars...@gmail.com 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











Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

2015-05-08 Thread 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

2015-05-08 Thread 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

2015-05-08 Thread 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] 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








Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

2015-05-08 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Friday, May 8, 2015, Anders Rundgren anders.rundgren@gmail.com
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






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

2015-05-08 Thread 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 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/

-AB





Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

2015-05-08 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Friday, May 8, 2015, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com 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?


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

2015-05-08 Thread 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 art.bars...@gmail.com 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