- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:37:36 +0900
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
I agree with element-only, because of the following: - Mixed allows in most cases much more than you actually want (mixed in XML can be controlled much less than in SGML) - Mixed is typically used for document text; transforms have clearly defined parameters (if not, something is wrong). - If there should be a case where using mixed for a transform is an alternative worth to consider, it's usually very easy to create a corresponding element-only model by adding one or a few more elements. Regards, Martin. At 00/09/01 09:52 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: >My preference is for element only as well for Transforms. Does anyone >oppose this. Ed/John, is the mixed content for Transforms even relevant to >the types of transforms we'd expect people to write now? > > >At 15:40 9/1/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote: >> > At 08:29 9/1/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote: >> > >Yes, I think it would be fine to have the same structure for all kind of >> > >algorithms. >> > >> > But are you arguing for consistency or for mixed? I could make them all >> > element only. >> >>I am arguing mainly for consistency. I personally would feel better with >>element only; if somebody wants to have mixed content, he can define a >>parameter element which allows this mixed content. > > > >_________________________________________________________ >Joseph Reagle Jr. >W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org >IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ >
Received on Friday, 1 September 2000 14:16:17 UTC