Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Recommends XML Signature Syntax

Posted by michael on from the sealed-with-a-kiss dept.

__past__ writes: "The W3C released a recommendation on XML Signature Syntax and Processing. The interesting point is not only that this is quite an important step for secure XML processing (esp. with regarding to web services), but also because there are some possibly ugly patent issues."

8 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. scary by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Patents really have shifted from implementation to idea in the software world, it seems.

    And doesn't the W3C accept RAND licensed patents now a W3C endorsed standards? (I can't recall if that went through or not.)

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  2. what made the web work by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    with the progress towards XML, etc. the WWW is moving away from those things that made the explosion of the WWW possible. The inherent simplicity in HTML, as something you could get the basics of in a few days of mild effort, or in a morning, if you were ambitious, is disappearing.

    What I am nervous about is that with the advance towards the more sophisticated technologies, the earlier simpler technologies will be "obsoleted". This may have implications for the democracy of the web slowing going away because only experts can do what used to be an everyman task.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:what made the web work by NineNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simplicity? XML is about as simple as you can get. XML is just straight text in tags similar to HTML. Of course, it's only go to do with data transfer, but XML is generally very simple. And for those people who don't know "data" from a hole in thr ground, there's no reason to use XML in the first place.

  3. An Introduction to XML Signatures (xml.com) by ditoudi · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want more information about XML Signature, just check this article
    http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/08/08/xmldsig.html

  4. Conflict of interest? by bunyip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, as I understand it, a working group (WG) member creates a standard and then says, "Oh, hey, great standard guys, but now you're all going to have to pay me for it".

    Is this not a conflict of interest? Should the WG member be immediately voted off? Perhaps they should be tarred and feathered, run out of town on a rail?

    I prefer the latter approach, it may reduce the number of bogus patent claims.

    Alan.

  5. Non-adoptable Standards by jfrumkin · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, you release a standard that has a number of patent questions surrounding it...hmmmm, let's see how many people jump at the opportunity to adopt something for which they could be sued or made to pay unknown license fees....

    Another thought: Can I patent the idea of patentable standards? Sounds like a business model to me...

    --

    "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
  6. Digitial Signatures and XML = Good Thing... by soap.xml · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would hope that the community and the possible "patent holders" allow for this to go forward. There really is a need for such a technology the XML/Web Services space.

    Having the ability to sign a document, or even a fragment of a document, allows for customers to "trust" that document and its contents. Sure https/ssl is a good way to "secure" the data during transit. But how can you be sure (currently) that the document I am sending you contains the proper information?

    Think of this in a b2b ecommerce setup. I can send you my pricing sheets, in xml format, you can be sure that they are really the proper pricing, and can be assured of the "current" availablity. In the same XML document, I can include reviews and any other pertanant infromation about a given product. Digitally signed and verified from a trusted third party source. My customers are now not worried that I am trying to push a product line by falsifing results, and I am providing them with content for there catalogs...

    To me, if it makes it through any "patent problems" this could be a very good thing ;)

    -ryan
  7. XML is no longer simple by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Simplicity? XML is about as simple as you can get. XML is just straight text in tags similar to HTML. Of course, it's only go to do with data transfer, but XML is generally very simple. And for those people who don't know "data" from a hole in thr ground, there's no reason to use XML in the first place.

    In the good old days, XML was simple but this is no longer the case as the W3C has created more and more complex standards that seem to require a P.hD to understand.

    • Want to specify a structure for your XML? XML Schemas
    • Want to query XML? XQuery
    • Want to transform XML to some other format? XSLT
    • Want to use XML as a transfer format for RPC calls? SOAP.
    • Want to create links between XML documents? XPointer, XLink, and XML:Base are all needed.
    • Want to include XML files in each other? XInclude
    Many of the above standards are rather complex and difficult for most people to understand completely. This is besides the stuff one has to understand about XML infoset and XML namespaces to fully understand how to use XML properly.

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions in the above post are MINE ALONE and do not reflect the opinions, intentions or strategies of my employer.