- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:52:16 +0100
- To: "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>
On 14 Dec 2009, at 20:33, Scott Cantor wrote: >> Note that the schema type of CipherValue is base64binary, therefore it would >> seem superfluous to normatively mention a separate base64 encoding step in >> the processing model; in fact, having an explicit base64 encoding step could >> be read to indicate *double* encoding. > > I don't think it's generally been the case that people read the schema type > to determine how to encode their data, or that people have inferred double > encoding in such cases, so I wouldn't go changing that piece. I'd basically aim to make clear that the base64 encoding is mandated normatively elsewhere (i.e., in the schema). That can be done by turning it into a parenthesis; I do take your point that it needs to be mentioned here.
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 19:52:21 UTC