W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > August 2011

Re: media type registration (Re: Draft minutes from 16 August 2011)

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:49:20 +0200
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DDFE225D-6C8A-423B-8DC5-93EA4C8CD2DE@w3.org>
To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
then go for it
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)







On 2011-08-16, at 19:11 +0200, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> The least work to remove the self reference would be to do what I suggest here. Keeps it fairly easy if you want to reinstall the reference in a stand-alone request later (if you use ReSpec)
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 12:32 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-08-16, at 17:36 +0200, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thomas, all
>>> 
>>> I think it is a very confusing policy to embed a registration document within another document as the references for the two become intermixed and formatting becomes that of the enclosing document etc
>>> 
>>> That said, the XML Encryption 1.1 media type section contains many references that are now listed in the references of the enclosing document. I think we should keep it that way to simplify maintenance of references (also that is where you'd expect to find document references as a reader).
>>> 
>> 
>> It's fine with me to keep the registration's references in the enclosing document.  I can fix this effect when the registration request gets submitted.
>> 
>>> There are also a number of references to XML Encryption 1.1, the enclosing document.
>>> 
>>> Putting each inline and attempting to maintain it would be a mistake.
>> 
>>> Thus I think we should go with another approach mentioned on the call today, and change each reference in this section to XML Encryption 1.1 to be the text
>>> "XMLENC-CORE1 (this document)" instead of [XMLENC-CORE1]. This should be clear within the context of the enclosing document and similar to the reference that would be used in a separate media type submission request. No corresponding reference will be included in the list of references.
>> 
>> No strong opinion either way on my side  this is the level of detail where I'd be happy to make the decision based on whatever is less work.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 17:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:16 UTC