- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:03:35 -0400
- To: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Gregor (and/or other implementors), I know the one example you provided that I'm using for interop included the XSLT element. If we remove the XSLT element it will no longer be valid (but Gregor's point is that it isn't valid now as the type for it is defined as string.) Does anyone mind if we drop the element? At 16:22 4/5/2001 -0400, Ed Simon wrote: >My preference (see >"<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0167.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0167.html") > >is to require that the <XSLT> element be defined to contain a full XSLT >stylesheet. As I recall, >we didn't get an answer as to whether this was possible and we gave up >trying. > >I note that the XML Signature spec only says the content of the <XSLT> >stylesheet element >"SHOULD" contain an <xsl:stylesheet> element (I feel "MUST" is the right >word) . I think >allowing vestigial styles sheets is asking for trouble because who knows >how they will be >processed. But given what the spec says (and I forget the arguments for >it), we can go ahead >with dropping the <XSLT> element. > >Ed __ Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 18:03:45 UTC