- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:57:32 +0000
- To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Cc: "Carl Wallace" <cwallace@erols.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Hi Gregor, >You are right, this is the cleaner solution, since there are less options >to do similar things. But (2) allows it to augment types, and this types >can still be used by applications only aware of the basic XML-Signature >syntax. If the data is critical to understanding an X509Data, then we agree that a new type MyX509Data must be defined. If it is not critical to understanding the X509Data, then why not place it in an X509DataExt element within the KeyInfo? I just don't see the tangible benefit of dirtying (you seem to agree that 2 is less clean) our primitive types. Merlin r/gregor.karlinger@iaik.at/2001.01.24/14:35:31
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 12:58:03 UTC