- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:19:35 -0400
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <lde008@dms.isg.mot.com>
At 09:12 4/19/2001 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: >My draft doesn't prohibit there being anything at the URL's. These >additional URIs are, at this instant, not part of the W3C standard or >otherwise in the orbit of the W3C. The XMDLSIG standard permits >algorithms defined by other orgnanizations, such as these, and does >not require them to be dereferencable. Do you want to change the >XMLDSIG standard to require dereferencability? I doubt that. I think the question is if folks in the WG prefer it, are you willing to publish it as a W3C NOTE and use a W3C namespace because the W3C is fairly robust in its versioning, stability, and persistence associated with its URIs? (I don't feel too strongly either way.) __ 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, 19 April 2001 11:20:06 UTC