W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ACTION-502: Propose new model for RetrievalMethod in 2.0

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:55:33 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "'Frederick Hirsch'" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8516F755-FD27-4880-BF5F-2BF7D838FE09@w3.org>
To: "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
On 9 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Scott Cantor wrote:

>> - empty URI references? (the current document)
> 
> That would be a circular reference in which you had a KeyInfoReference as a
> child of the KeyInfo it pointed to.

So?

My meta point here is that we should try to not constrain URIs in the Signature syntax unless we absolutely need to.

If fragment identifiers in XML documents are using some kind of xpointer at some point, then that should be fine.

So, if we can get by by just saying "URI reference", I'd prefer that over defining our own subset of URI references that we permit.
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 14:55:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 February 2010 14:55:37 GMT