W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > July 2007

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

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:32:12 -0400
Message-Id: <073AD06D-868E-4A47-8075-EF7AFE995157@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>, XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>

+1 to this.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:40 UTC