- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:42:50 -0400
- 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