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

RE: ACTION-434: Propose final disposition of Referencing syntax

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:58:55 -0500
To: "'Pratik Datta'" <PRATIK.DATTA@oracle.com>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02a501ca9af5$b09aa3f0$11cfebd0$@2@osu.edu>
Pratik Datta wrote on 2010-01-21:
> I see where are you going with this "Type".  It is like how
> <CanonicalizationMethod> has an Algorithm which says how to process the
> canonilicalization. Similarly you want <dsig2:Selection> to have a "Type".
> Maybe we can rename it to "Algorithm" too.

I intended it to capture everything that could be found inside
<dsig2:Selection> and how you use it, so Algorithm probably is a better name
based on how it's used elsewhere now.

That doesn't strictly preclude adding "yet another layer of indirection"
somewhere inside the element's content, I agree. I just favored trying to
limit those layers if it makes sense.

> For the respec conversion that I am doing now, I will just keep the
current
> meaning of type/subtype i.e. the one that is in the current draft, and we
> can discuss this in the meeting.

Ok. I'm inclined to go with whatever people prefer on the XPath side of
things, I don't feel strongly about it.

I *may* be inclined to suggest an alternate "simpler" Algorithm that doesn't
use XPath at all, but I'm not there just yet.

-- Scott
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 23:59:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 January 2010 23:59:27 GMT