W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Typos, etc.

From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:09:24 +0900
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB2451227.B2D105B7-ON49256B56.00500C50@LocalDomain>


Joseph,

I'm sorry for not replying sooner.

>> 3.6
>> The Target attribute is defined as optional, while the same attribute is
>> defined as required in XML-Signature.  Is there any intention though I'm
>> not sure whether it should be defined as required?
>
>In dsig, particularly as the signature and its data was more likely to be
>seperated (and/or there'd be  multiple signatures) I was keen on making
the
>relationship explicit. I expect less of that here. I could go either way?
>Do you prefer we be consistent?

I don't have so strong opinion on this, and if others don't say anything, I
don't mind keeping the attribute optional.

>> 4.2
>> In step 4.3, how about dividing the 2nd sentence to "The decryptor is
NOT
>> REQUIRED to perform validation on the serialized XML." and "The
decryptor
>> is NOT REQUIRED to perform validation on the result of this replacement
>> operation.", and moving the 1st one to step 4.2?
>
>But the following sentence, "The application supplies the XML document
>context and identifies the EncryptedData element being replaced. " goes
>with the replace. Right? I did split the sentence as you suggested, so
>please let me know if that helps.

Please move one of the splitted sentences, "The decryptor is NOT REQUIRED
to perform validation on the serialized XML.", to step 4.2.

Thanks,
Takeshi IMAMURA
Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
imamu@jp.ibm.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:35:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:20 GMT