RE: Comments on the 6 Apr Draft

At 09:11 5/16/2001 -0700, Blair Dillaway wrote:
>However, an encryptor could take the document
>    <1>
>        <a/>
>        <b/>
>    </1>
>encrypt the children of '1' giving
>    <1>
>         <EncryptedData>
>             <CipherData>somebase64text</CipherData>
>         </EncryptedData>
>    </1>
>and then add in a child element of '1' with tag 'c' to get
>       <1>
>         <EncryptedData>
>             <CipherData>somebase64text</CipherData>
>         </EncryptedData>
>         <c/>
>       </1>

Hrmm... good point. What I was trying to ask was if you had (a,b,c) from the 
start, if you wanted to encrypt only (a,b), I assume the instance would look 
like:
<1>
   <EncryptedData/>
   <EncryptedData/>
   <c/>
</1>

and not as you have it above. But in your scenario the result can happen not 
through the encryption, but through subsequent additions. Under that 
scenario, the EncryptedData of type childNodes would have to be interpreted 
as not the childNode property itself, but a contribution to the childNodes 
in case others were added. (And I can see why you want to call it a 
NodeList...)



__
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/