- From: Steve Wiley <steve@myProof.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:45:44 -0800
- To: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>, "'Sanjeev Hirve'" <shirve@cyberelan.com>, Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
- Cc: Michael Sakhatsky <msakhatsky@cyberelan.com>, Raju Nadakaduty <praju@cyberelan.com>, Marcus A Cuda <mcuda@cyberelan.com>
At 11:11 AM 1/9/2001 -0800, Blair Dillaway wrote: >Ed Simon's earlier email stated quite clearly the issue of complexity >versus value many of us are wrestling with. I have yet to see a compelling >example that justifies the complexity and tend to agree with Philip H.'s >earlier comments that "the set of all XML applications that require >encryption to be added under the constraint of inflexible adherence to a >legacy schema is the empty set." This seems like a pretty bold statement to make, and it contradicts my experience. There are companies that started using XML fairly early and many of the applications that were developed were not upwardly compatible. The problems we are have had is not with attributes but with encrypting element content. Inserting new elements into what is expected to be only CDATA is the main problem that I have seen (especially for DOM parsers). We cannot tell a paying customer to redesign their legacy applications and XML vocabularies. Steve Wiley
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2001 14:43:57 UTC