- From: James Ide <ide@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:49:10 -0700
> Why would it be more flexible to use another element? Surely attributes > are just as flexible. Attributes are flexible if they are named generically (e.g. just params=""). But as soon as they are named dsaparams="" or ecparams="", UAs are somewhat precluded from adding some new algorithm XYZ because of the lack of an xyzparams="" attribute. In short, if it is likely that UAs will support more than just two or three popular signature algorithms, it may be worthwhile to allow authors to specify a name and parameters for any arbitrary algorithm. (It doesn't have to be with elements - that was just an initial suggestion.) Otherwise, if RSA, DSA, and perhaps ECs are the only prevalent algorithms (and will continue to be so), then adding rsaparams, dsaparams, and ecparams as attributes sounds good to me (and less verbose!). > More importantly, we cannot use an element because <keygen> parses just like > <input> and friends. Right - I'm not quite sure that it's worthwhile to bring on this change. - James
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:49:10 UTC