Uri,
I have read through your suggestion, and it seem to me that if one would
specify a visual signature as described by you, it still would be an
extension of the current proposal. Do you agree?
Michael
Uri Resnitzky wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Michael Brauer wrote:
>> A visual signature would be an extension of the current
>> proposal, but would not have an influence on that proposal
>> itself. I therefore think we should discuss this separately.
>
> Supporting visual signature does influence your original proposal in the
> way the XML d-sig <Signature> element is built:
> When a document needs to be signed by two persons, when the second
> signature is added, its visual appearance markup cannot be directly
> added to the document content, because that would invalidate the first
> signature.
> The solution for this is to store the markup for the visual appearance
> of each signature in an <Object> element of the <Signature> object in
> the META-INF/documentsignatures.xml file, instead of putting it in the
> document content.xml.
> The <SignedInfo> element of each such <Signature> object must include a
> <Reference> element to the visual appearance markup <Object> for that
> signature.
> The content.xml will only have a placeholder (the signature control I
> suggested), and we can require the application to display this control
> using the markup found in the <Object> of the corresponding <Signature>
> (if it is signed).
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Uri
--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
