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

Re: Decryption Transform processing question

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:32:10 -0400
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-Id: <200207311132.10526.reagle@w3.org>

Note: I'm still hoping to publish these documents on  Friday.

On Tuesday 30 July 2002 04:59 pm, merlin wrote:
> Saying that implementors MAY proceed if decryption fails
> doesn't optionally allow any added feature, it simply means
> that processing is ambiguous. If we are to go this route,
> we should document that they MUST proceed; that way all
> compliant decryption transforms will work. I personally
> don't think that we should proceed if decryption has failed.
I don't feel very strongly on this issue but if it appears there's no 
resolution I'll default to whatever is in the editors' draft.

> >So I'm proposing to make it recommended or optional to implement.
> >Considering that support of full XPointers in main-document exceptions
> > is optional, it seems natural to make support of them in sub-document
> > exceptions optional.  However, I don't have so strong opinion on this,
> > so I can take yours.
> How about the following text:
> ...
> Implementors can then add full XPointer support as they see fit.

My concern with this is that I know a few implementors have no plans for the 
decryption transform, and I need two implementation of every feature. If 
the both of you agree, and plan on implementing this feature, we can go 
with it. Otherwise, I'd rather not introduce another hurdle to moving this 
spec along.
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 11:32:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:04 UTC