Re: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?

I'm in favor of element-only and it looks to me like no one is in favor
of the more complex mixed content model...


From:  "Martin J. Duerst" <>
Message-Id:  <>
Date:  Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:37:36 +0900
To:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <>,
            "Gregor Karlinger" <>
Cc:  "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <>,
            "John Boyer"  <>, Ed Simon <>
In-Reply-To:  <>
References:  <>

>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      
>>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair

Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 11:52:12 UTC