Talk:XAdES
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
Major Modifications Made[edit]
- I replaced the main reference (an obsolete directive) with the eIDAS regulation, which is in place since 2014
- I tried to go away from the too technical approach on this article.
- I explained what XAdES is, what it is good for and where the limits are
Suggestion:
- The profile section describes an aspect which is in my humble opinion irrelevant. Other technical aspects like the baseline signatures would be more important.
- Given that the new draft standard omitted the profiles, I suggest to also take them out. Thx for comments
ScienceGuard (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
eIDAs on Court Admissibility for non-Qualified sigs[edit]
There is a misunderstanding on what eIDAS specifies about court admissibility, and the referred article from cryptomathic on this issue is afoul. eIDAS nowhere states that adv-sigs (or any kind of signatures for that matter) should be rejected by courts. What eIDAS states is that only "Qualified signatures" are automatically admissible as evidence. It's up to the court to decide to accept other means of evidence, such as advanced-sigs, assuming, for instance, that a group of security experts examine and verify as 'secure" the measures taken to ensure the trust on those sigs. And this is governed by "standard" civil code. Sperxios (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
External links to open source projects[edit]
Under external links, one (and only one) open source implementation of XAdES has two links (project website and Github). There are various open source libraries available and I don't think Wikipedia articles are the place to try to include a list of all implementations of a standard. I therefore suggest removing these two links. --Renate (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)