At 12:09 5/18/2001 +0100, merlin wrote: >I've always thought that Encoding and MimeType were a bit >weird. They seem only to have meaning for character content >(which will be the minority of uses), the encoding is implicit >in the Transforms applied of the corresponding Reference and >the MimeType can be represented by its Type attribute. It >would make more sense to me if they were defined on a MimeData >element that could be used within Object, but I would not >even advocate that. [ Resulting document http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html $Revision: 1.63 $ on $Date: 2001/05/31 22:40:41 $ /+The MimeType attribute is an optional attribute which describes the data within the Object (independent of its encoding). This is a string with values defined by [MIME]. For example, if the Object contains base64 encoded XML, the Encoding may be specified as base64 and the MimeType as text/xml. This attribute is purely advisory; no validation of the MimeType information is required by this specification. Applications which require normatiave type and encoding information for signature validation should specify Transforms with well defined resulting types and/or encodings.+/ ] -- 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, 31 May 2001 18:41:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:13 GMT