W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:09:05 -0700
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Ed Simon" <ed.simon@entrust.com>
Hi all,

My understanding was that transforms were required to include all parameters
in elements, so mixed content of the Transform element is not required.

It used to be required because we were just including whatever data was
necessary (XSLT or an XPath expression), so I think the MIXED setting is

However, I think the idea behind transforms is that they be extensible in
the future.  In the past, Ed pointed out that ANY means any element defined
in the DTD.  However, if you omit the Transform <!ELEMENT declaration, I
think you can put whatever you want inside it with a maximum of a warning
from validating processors.  I believe we could still include the <!ATTLIST
without trouble.

John Boyer
Development Team Leader,
Distributed Processing and XML
PureEdge Solutions Inc.
Creating Binding E-Commerce
v: 250-479-8334, ext. 143  f: 250-479-3772
1-888-517-2675   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph M. Reagle
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 6:53 AM
To: Gregor Karlinger
Cc: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG; John Boyer; Ed Simon
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?

My preference is for element only as well for Transforms. Does anyone oppose
this. Ed/John, is the mixed content for Transforms even relevant to the
types of transforms we'd expect people to write now?

At 15:40 9/1/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
> > At 08:29 9/1/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
> > >Yes, I think it would be fine to have the same structure for all kind
> > >algorithms.
> >
> > But are you arguing for consistency or for mixed? I could make them all
> > element only.
>I am arguing mainly for consistency. I personally would feel better with
>element only; if somebody wants to have mixed content, he can define a
>parameter element which allows this mixed content.

Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 1 September 2000 13:09:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:34 UTC