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

Re: Decryption Transform comments

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:43:40 -0500
To: <hirsch@zolera.com>
Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org>, <imamu@jp.ibm.com>, <maruyama@jp.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <20011101224341.5C222875E7@policy.w3.org>
On Thursday 01 November 2001 12:09, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> Shouldn't the URI attribute of the Except element be required? The schema
> says it is optional.

Ok, I've reflected your tweaks (with my own teaks) and the URI as required 
in [new revision: 1.10].

> I also find the function name noDecryptNodes confusing and sugggest an
> alternative: decryptIncludedNodes

I agree the names are a bit confusing ... On another similar note for 
parallelism, if we use "noDecryptNodes" (subject to change) perhaps we 
should call the other decryptNode)? Regardless, I defer this and the 
following question to Takeshi and Hiroshi (and the list).

> I also have a question regarding transform generation. Should the
> document be canonicalized before creating the Decryption Transform, as
> well as after?


* I will be in France from 3-9 November for the W3C AC Meeting.

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, 1 November 2001 17:43:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:02 UTC