- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:41:18 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
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 UTC