- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:30:07 -0400
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
- cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I think Type should be mandatory. People who have defined their own KeyInfo data element can easily construct a type for it. Donald From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200009071652.MAA27370@www19.w3.org> Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000907124935.02bb0920@rpcp.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:51:56 -0400 To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com> Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> In-Reply-To: <200009071615.MAA08704@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> >At 12:15 9/7/2000 -0400, Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote: > >><code>DigestMethod</code> or <code>DigestValue</code> sub-element and >>presence of the <code>URI</code> and <code>Type</code> attributes is >>mandatory. > >We still have to deal with the mandatorines of that attribute. That means >people HAVE to come up with a type. Is this intended? We only specify a >subset of key types. Consequently people will come up with other types (that >is fine) or throw dummy text in there which seems like a bad thing if they >want to rely upon type information found elsewhere. > >_________________________________________________________ >Joseph Reagle Jr. >W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org >IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ >
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 13:27:13 UTC