- From: johnmessing <johnmessing@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 07:13:52 -0700
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I would make mime-type optional. ----- Original Message ----- From: "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie> To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>; "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>; <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:09 AM Subject: Re: XML Signatures and binary files > > I've always thought that Encoding and MimeType were a bit > weird. They seem only to have meaning for character content > (which will be the minority of uses), the encoding is implicit > in the Transforms applied of the corresponding Reference and > the MimeType can be represented by its Type attribute. It > would make more sense to me if they were defined on a MimeData > element that could be used within Object, but I would not > even advocate that. > > Merlin > > r/reagle@w3.org/2001.05.17/09:24:46 > >At 08:34 5/17/2001 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: > >>Close, but I would think it would be more like > >> > >><Object Id="arbitraryBase64EncodedData" > >> Encoding="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#base64" > >> MimeType="application/octet-stream"> > > > >The reason this concerned me is I think the spec is a bit ambigous on this > >note. In your instance the Encoding and MimeType are redundant -- I think? > >Or is the MimeType the type of the object regardless of its encoding? > > > >__ > >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/ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect > or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this > message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. > > In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to > promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or > appearance at trade shows and conferences. > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by > Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including > computer viruses. > http://www.baltimore.com > >
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 10:09:32 UTC