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

Re: XML Signatures and binary files

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:42:50 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 12:09 5/18/2001 +0100, merlin wrote:
>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.

We could
1. remove those two and use attribute "Type", and say it has the same 
behavior as that in Reference.
2. maintain these two attributes, and say Encoding is the encoding of the 
Object content, MimeType is the mime-type of the data object (independent of 
its present encoding). All of this information continues to be advisory and 
when this information is necessary to processing we recommend it be 
explicitly specified via the Reference element and its Type attribute and 
Transform children (e.g., decoding).

I prefer option 2 since it doesn't require us to change the DTD/schema.

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 Tuesday, 22 May 2001 12:43:18 UTC

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