W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2001

Re: What to do with CryptoBinary?

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:54:00 -0500
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC049F253.F8326227-ON85256A1B.007D8C90@lotus.com>
I don't claim to be an expert on the digital signatures specification, but 
my quick reading of it suggests that CryptoBinary is not just any base64 
binary, it is specifically binary that results from applying the 
mechanisms of the digital signatures specification.  If I am right about 
this, then I suggest that keeping the name is appropriate.  We can expect 
the XPath version 2, as well as many non-W3C database mapping systems, 
will support queries based on type name.  By specifically naming the 
digital signature type, you will allow behaviors to be applied to any 
information specifically coded in that manner.  The fact that the XML 
schema validation mechanisms provided no additional direct checking is 
unimportant, I think.  Higher level mechanisms can key on the type name 
and will know what to do.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 17:56:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:51 UTC