W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Proposal: Moving DataModel to XML1.0

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:21:18 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010606151918.00b95be0@localhost>
To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: "XML Encryption WG " <xml-encryption@w3.org>
[Resulting document
         http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/05/11-proposal.html#sec-Processing-XML
         $Revision: 1.11 $ on $Date: 2001/06/06 19:16:01 $
]

For interoperability purposes, the following types MUST be implemented.

Element 'http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#Element'
     ...
Content 'http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#Content'
    ...
MediaType ' http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/*/*'
     A user specified media type (e.g., text/xml). All such types are
     implemented as simple octet encryption.


At 02:12 6/6/2001, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
> >>4. In 4.3, I'm not sure, but if the media type, "text/xml", for an XML
> >>document is specified to implement, its processing rules should be also
> >>specified.
> >
> >What would be necessary beyond what is necessary for any other octet
> >sequence?
>
>This is exactly what I want to ask.  I also think that nothing is necessary
>beyond what is necessary for an octet sequence, and so I do not see the
>reason for specifying that a media type "text/xml" MUST be implemented.  If
>a special processing is not necessary, specifying the media type does not
>make sense for me...


--
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 Wednesday, 6 June 2001 15:21:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:19 GMT