[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dss-x] DSS-X Visible Signatures Profile
If I may generate input to this thread: Andreas Kuehne wrote 20070727T093103Z > > > > [...] Perhaps we need two different profiles to address > > > > these two approaches. > > > > > > I strongly disagree, for a couple of reasons ... > > > > > > * There is only one visual signatures profile on our charter. > > > > The charter specifically allows the TC to expand the list of > > profiles if we see the need for it. > > Yes ! I would vote for two different profiles : First of all, I think our first work in this area should be, to establish a common consensus about what actually shall be covered by the concept of a "visual signature", how it is aligned with the understanding of a "visible signature" and then, secondly, how this may or may not include or be extended to include specific solutions, like eg. PDF/DOC/DOT/XLS/XLT/SQLite/... > - PDF signatures : Signatures embedded in a PDF file, visible or not. > This is a complex area with lots of attention that deserves a separate > profile. And I don't feel happy with leaving out 'invisible' signature > by the profile title. One additional comment from my side, while we're at it: All files that have a specified format (structure) with controlled instances applying standardized (with a small s) functions and procedures (transformations) on data stored within like e.g. Microsoft Words *.DOC* (or *.DOT* :?), or Microsoft Excels *.XLS (or *.XLT*) or even SQLites files with its accessing functions open up a wild jungle of specific (proprietary) rules that may or may not change to the knowledge of a processing server or its clients. > - Visible representations of signatures : If I understand Konrad's > proposal correctly, that's what it's intending ... > My understanding is, that what is intended is not very clear among us with regard to visible and/or visual (representations of) signatures and how these mix or are separate from each other as far as it has to be distinguished from the profile/processing rules point of view. > Dtmo these two areas doesn't overlap, because the visible > 'representation' of the signature used in PDF docs isn't more than a > funny picture and / or some text ... I like to see us working out these terms :)) ... as long as we do not extend our list of deliverables to a "funny pictures profile" ... All the best, Stefan.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]