Re: Type vs MimeType (Re: ACTION-60)

+1 to this.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:33 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:

>
> On 2007-07-09 15:07:45 +0200, Juan Carlos Cruellas wrote:
>
>> It could initially thought that ds:Reference's Type operates at a
>> higher level than the ds:Object's mimeType, the first identifying
>> that what is signed is a ds:Object and the second identifying
>> that the media type of what is signed si for instance a pdf
>> document. If this is true then these attributes could be seen as
>> somehow orthogonal.
>
> That sounds like a plausible interpretation to me.
>
>> But this interpretation has one drawback:
>
>> 1. If the signature is dettached and the signed data object is not  
>> a child
>> of a ds:Object, then how to report its media type?
>
> The intent of the spec seems to be that an Object be used in these
> cases; see the discussion toward the end of 2.2.  I don't see any
> obvious way, though, to integrate a media type with a reference to
> an external resource; that's probably an open point.
>
> (In fact, from an architectural point of view, there's an
> interesting tension between resources and their representations in
> here as well...)
>
>> If I am not wrong (and please forgive me if I am) the text in a
>> MIME media type identifier could also be seen as a relative URI
>> reference (a one having a relative-part= path-noscheme without
>> query and fragment). If we may set the ds:Reference's Type
>> attribute to a MIME media type then we may assert the media type
>> of the dettached data object to be signed, but then we should
>> make it clear that both attributes overlap in their purposes.
>
> That sounds a bit too much like shoe-horning an additional feature
> into existing markup.  I'd suggest we note this in the wiki as an
> issue for further work, and not make any changes in the PER.
>
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 12:38:08 UTC