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

Editorial Conventions Questions

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:31:42 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I've been banging my head against our syntax (with few good results) ... but
here are some simple questions that perhaps will prompt some others'
thoughts, I'll follow with another convention proposal. 

Simple Questions

   Do people prefer Element Names as:
    1. <DigestAlgorithm>...</DigestAlgorithm>
    2. <Digest>
   If people prefer #2, we can change SignatureValue to SignatureResult
   since it is a special case.
   There are three ways to express semantics, via explicit representation
   in the XML syntax, a default declaration in the DTD, or via the
   natural language in the specification. Do people prefer:
    1. Semantics should be communicated via explicit syntax whenever
       possible possible.
    2. Syntax should be as brief as possible.
     * Do we call things algorithm, name, or type?

Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 1999 18:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:32 UTC