W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Review of XML Encryption / EXI integration (ACTION-493)

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:52:16 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>
Message-Id: <88DB8395-47B8-46BB-A124-F5D60C81FDF7@w3.org>
To: "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
On 14 Dec 2009, at 20:33, Scott Cantor wrote:

>> Note that the schema type of CipherValue is base64binary, therefore it would
>> seem superfluous to normatively mention a separate base64 encoding step in
>> the processing model; in fact, having an explicit base64 encoding step could
>> be read to indicate *double* encoding.
> I don't think it's generally been the case that people read the schema type
> to determine how to encode their data, or that people have inferred double
> encoding in such cases, so I wouldn't go changing that piece.

I'd basically aim to make clear that the base64 encoding is mandated normatively elsewhere (i.e., in the schema).  That can be done by turning it into a parenthesis; I do take your point that it needs to be mentioned here.
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 19:52:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:12 UTC