- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:30:43 -0400
- To: "Blair Dillaway" <blaird@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
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/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 12:30:47 UTC