W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Schema definition for <Transform>

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:03:35 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
Cc: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

Gregor (and/or other implementors),

I know the one example you provided that I'm using for interop included the 
XSLT element. If we remove the XSLT element it will no longer be valid (but 
Gregor's point is that it isn't valid now as the type for it is defined as 
string.) Does anyone mind if we drop the element?

At 16:22 4/5/2001 -0400, Ed Simon wrote:

>My preference (see 
>is to require that the <XSLT> element be defined to contain a full XSLT 
>stylesheet.  As I recall,
>we didn't get an answer as to whether this was possible and we gave up 
>I note that the XML Signature spec only says the content of the <XSLT> 
>stylesheet element
>"SHOULD" contain an <xsl:stylesheet> element (I feel "MUST" is the right 
>word) .  I think
>allowing vestigial styles sheets is asking for trouble because who knows 
>how they will be
>processed.  But given  what the spec says (and I forget the arguments for 
>it), we can go ahead
>with dropping the <XSLT> element.

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 18:03:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:04 UTC