RE: ACTION-434: Propose final disposition of Referencing syntax

Pratik Datta wrote on 2010-01-21:
> I see where are you going with this "Type".  It is like how
> <CanonicalizationMethod> has an Algorithm which says how to process the
> canonilicalization. Similarly you want <dsig2:Selection> to have a "Type".
> Maybe we can rename it to "Algorithm" too.

I intended it to capture everything that could be found inside
<dsig2:Selection> and how you use it, so Algorithm probably is a better name
based on how it's used elsewhere now.

That doesn't strictly preclude adding "yet another layer of indirection"
somewhere inside the element's content, I agree. I just favored trying to
limit those layers if it makes sense.

> For the respec conversion that I am doing now, I will just keep the
current
> meaning of type/subtype i.e. the one that is in the current draft, and we
> can discuss this in the meeting.

Ok. I'm inclined to go with whatever people prefer on the XPath side of
things, I don't feel strongly about it.

I *may* be inclined to suggest an alternate "simpler" Algorithm that doesn't
use XPath at all, but I'm not there just yet.

-- Scott

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 23:59:25 UTC