- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:15:14 -0400
- To: "'Magnus Nystrom'" <mnystrom@microsoft.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
> Actually I would like for us not to change the schema here; the reason is > that for the other usages of CryptoBinary related to ECC that you mention, > the underlying value is just a simple type: An octet string or a seed value, > etc. Here, we have an in-built structure and having an abstraction makes > sense. I'm not sure I understand that claim. If the type is a CryptoBinary, it has no structure as far as the schema knows, and it couldn't be changed later to have a different content model without breaking implementations. If you're trying to say that the internals of the CrytoBinary data are structured in some way, I would suggest using an annotation or somethng like that. There's not much else you can do with the schema. -- Scott
Received on Monday, 14 June 2010 23:15:41 UTC