W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Fw: Error in xmldsig REC

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:45:09 -0400
Message-ID: <004001c20c97$35bf9c20$f2a0fea9@DJQC7111>
To: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

 I'm for specifying the Encoding attribute as an URI.

Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>
> To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>; <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org>; <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Error in xmldsig REC
>
>
> >
> > On Friday 31 May 2002 09:32 pm, Martin Duerst wrote:
> > > At 15:59 02/05/31 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:
> > > >While looking at xenc's use of the MimeType and Encoding attributes I
> > > >noticed that in the text we say Encoding="base64" but the schema says
> > > ><attribute name='Encoding' type='anyURI' use="optional"/>.
> > > Your mail is a bit out of context. Are you talking about XML Sig,
> > > or XML Enc? And which element(s)?
> >
> > Both. I noticed the error in xenc, wondered where it came from and found
> it
> > in xmldsig. So one way to answer my question is, what do we want for
xenc?
> > Do we want:
> >
> >   <EncryptedData MimeType="text/xml"
> >     Encoding="base64"/>
> > or
> >   <EncryptedData MimeType="text/xml"
> >     Encoding="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#base64"/>
> >
> > (This confusion is the result of my occasional attempt use actual
> > identifiers instead of non-qualified strings and get IETF/IANA to assign
> > such identifiers... Didn't manage to do this in xmldsig or xenc, maybe
> next
> > time around!). On the xmldsig front, I think it'll be easier to change
the
> > example in the text than the schema, so that's the likely path I will
> > pursue.
> >
> > > it is very worthwhile to make sure that in the text, every
> > > single instance of the word 'encoding' is qualified
> > > (e.g. 'character encoding', 'transfer encoding',...), and
> > > that the differences are pointed out clearly.
> >
> > Yes, my nativity that the task of representing and sending characters
> > would be straight-forward seems inexhaustible. <smile/> I thought some
> > ambiguity for the Encoding attribute wouldn't be too harmful as it's a
> > informational piece of information used at the applications discretion.
> > However, the syntax difference between the schema and the example in the
> > spec do need to be remedied.
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 09:45:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:16 GMT