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

Small item for consideration this PM in the 1.1 discussion

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:57:29 -0500
To: "'XMLSec WG'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Cc: "'Frederick Hirsch'" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <04f901ca5e5a$96456bc0$c2d04340$@2@osu.edu>
Sorry I won't be on the call, but the small item I had was just to ask
whether the new extension schema for 1.1 should make use of xml:id anywhere
that it declares an Id attribute in the draft.

I didn't think about it at the time and we just left them as "Id" for
consistency. We probably should have used xml:id, and I imagine that isn't
too controversial, but we should decide.

Specific examples:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#sec-ECKeyValue
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#sec-DEREncodedKeyValue

-- Scott
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 20:58:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:44:00 GMT