- From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:41:42 +0200
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "Ed Simon" <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> Does anyone mind if we drop the element? No, that is fine with me. Regards, Gregor --------------------------------------------------------------- DI Gregor Karlinger mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at http://www.iaik.at Phone +43 316 873 5541 Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications Austria --------------------------------------------------------------- > > At 16:22 4/5/2001 -0400, Ed Simon wrote: > > >My preference (see > >"<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep > /0167.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/20 > 00JulSep/0167.html") > > > >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 > >trying. > > > >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. > > > >Ed > > > __ > 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 Monday, 9 April 2001 09:09:36 UTC