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 21:17:18 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AF8D0EF5-ED03-4DCA-8F0A-388058FD894C@w3.org>
To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Right, and we do that in the *format* part of the spec, not in the processing model.

I suggest that we revisit this point when I put concrete text on the table.
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

On 14 Dec 2009, at 21:06, Scott Cantor wrote:

> Thomas Roessler wrote on 2009-12-14:
>> 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.
> There are a number of base64Binary types in the schemas, but I'm not aware
> of any other cases in which the phrasing has been to imply that the schema
> is what dictates the encoding. E.g. the various KeyInfo types.
> I would say rather that the encoding is mandated by the spec, and the schema
> where possible reflects that.
> -- Scott
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 20:17:20 UTC

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