- From: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:28:49 +0200
- To: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Dear all, Some discussions within ESI group have made me to revisit both the attribute Type of ds:Reference and the attribute MimeType of the ds:Object. Type of ds:Reference is defined as being of type URI, being its purpose (as we agreed) to identify the type of what will actually be digested. So far so good. MimeType of ds:Object is of type string because it must contain the mime type identifier of what may be included in a ds:Object. I can also see its usefulness because there is a registry of MIME object types and everybody knows it... My question is why Type wihtin ds:Reference was selected to be an URI being its purpose to identify the type of what will actually be digested? I guess that because MIME does not cover every type of object that somebody could think to sign... but then who is in charge of defining these URIs identifying new types of data object types...? Is this difference meaning that if I have to generate an enveloping signature of a type of document registered in MIME I should use the MimeType within ds:Object, whereas if it is not registered I should use the Type within ds:Reference and inventing some URI and agree with the recipient in the meaning of the URI?....in summary are these attributes different ways of indicating the same thing (of course when what is to be digested and the content of the ds:Object are the same thing) or there is some subtle thing here that I have missed? Appologies if I am raising an already discussed issue. Juan Carlos.
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 12:29:02 UTC