W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: comments on 990806 Requirements Doc

From: Richard D. Brown <rdbrown@Globeset.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:15:11 -0500
To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ba01bee9ad$fef362d0$0bc0010a@artemis.globeset.com>
> At 12:01 99/08/18 -0500, Richard D. Brown wrote:
>  >Fair. In that case, consider "An XML-signature must be an
> XML element as
>  >specified by the production labeled element in the XML
> specification."

> Joseph Replied:
>
> But it's more than an element. I'm rather happy with the constrained
> definition from xml-fragment, is there a reason you oppose this?
>
>

Why is it more than an element? (I mean besides the procedures to be further
defined) OK, we may provide some additional definition for packaging
certificates, but the core of an XML-Signature consists of an XML element.

Conversely, an XML fragment might comprise part of an element as well as
spanning multiple elements (in part or in whole).

Richard D.
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 15:15:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:07 GMT