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 >> >
