- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:31:42 -0400
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I've been banging my head against our syntax (with few good results) ... but
here are some simple questions that perhaps will prompt some others'
thoughts, I'll follow with another convention proposal.
Simple Questions
Elements
Do people prefer Element Names as:
1. <DigestAlgorithm>...</DigestAlgorithm>
<DigestValue>...</DigestValue>
2. <Digest>
<Algorithm>
<Value>
</Digest>
If people prefer #2, we can change SignatureValue to SignatureResult
since it is a special case.
Defaults
There are three ways to express semantics, via explicit representation
in the XML syntax, a default declaration in the DTD, or via the
natural language in the specification. Do people prefer:
1. Semantics should be communicated via explicit syntax whenever
possible possible.
2. Syntax should be as brief as possible.
Properties:
* Do we call things algorithm, name, or type?
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 1999 18:39:29 UTC