- From: Richard D. Brown <rdbrown@Globeset.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:15:11 -0500
- To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> At 12:01 99/08/18 -0500, Richard D. Brown wrote: > >Fair. In that case, consider "An XML-signature must be an > XML element as > >specified by the production labeled element in the XML > specification." > Joseph Replied: > > But it's more than an element. I'm rather happy with the constrained > definition from xml-fragment, is there a reason you oppose this? > > Why is it more than an element? (I mean besides the procedures to be further defined) OK, we may provide some additional definition for packaging certificates, but the core of an XML-Signature consists of an XML element. Conversely, an XML fragment might comprise part of an element as well as spanning multiple elements (in part or in whole). Richard D.
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 15:15:40 UTC