- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:33:07 +0100
- To: <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
+1 to consistency of approach regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:28 PM, ext Cantor, Scott E. wrote: > This is a companion to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Dec/0046.html so please read that first. > > What I was proposing on the last call was to consider revising the XML model of the Verification child elements to match the conventions elsewhere in the specification in which a generic element with an Algorithm or Type attribute is used to identify specific versions of the generic element. > > Today, we have this: > > <dsig2:Selection Type="..." Subtype="..."> > ... > </dsig2:Selection> > <dsig2:Verificiation> > <dsig2:DigestDataLength>100</dsig2:DigestDataLength> > <dsig2:IDAttributes> > <dsig2:QualifiedAttr Name="type" NS="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"/> > </dsig2:IDAttributes> > </dsig2:Verification> > > In the linked email, I'm suggesting this: > > <dsig2:Selection Algorithm="..."> > ... > </dsig2:Selection> > > Here, I'm suggesting this: > > <dsig2:Verifications> > <dsig2:Verification Type="...#DigestDataLength">100</dsig2:Verification> > <dsig2:Verification Type="...#IDAttributes"> > <dsig2:QualifiedAttr Name="type" NS="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"/> > </dsig2:Verification> > </dsig2:Verifications> > > There would be some schema and section reorg associated with this change, largely analagous to the changes I suggested in the linked email, so I don't think I need to go through all of them. > > Note that I am not suggesting this is "better" in XML or anything like that. I'm suggesting it's more *consistent* with the rest of the spec. For better or worse, decisions get made and different specs take different approaches to representing extensibility. I think consistency within a spec is the important issue. It makes it easier to build implementations when you aren't constantly mixing XML metaphors. IMHO at least. > > -- Scott > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 14:34:15 UTC