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

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

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:37:36 +0900
Message-Id: <>
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>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
I agree with element-only, because of the following:

- Mixed allows in most cases much more than you actually want
   (mixed in XML can be controlled much less than in SGML)
- Mixed is typically used for document text; transforms have
   clearly defined parameters (if not, something is wrong).
- If there should be a case where using mixed for a transform
   is an alternative worth to consider, it's usually very easy
   to create a corresponding element-only model by adding one
   or a few more elements.

Regards,   Martin.

At 00/09/01 09:52 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
>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 of
>> > >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 14:16:17 UTC

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