- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:54:00 -0500
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
I don't claim to be an expert on the digital signatures specification, but my quick reading of it suggests that CryptoBinary is not just any base64 binary, it is specifically binary that results from applying the mechanisms of the digital signatures specification. If I am right about this, then I suggest that keeping the name is appropriate. We can expect the XPath version 2, as well as many non-W3C database mapping systems, will support queries based on type name. By specifically naming the digital signature type, you will allow behaviors to be applied to any information specifically coded in that manner. The fact that the XML schema validation mechanisms provided no additional direct checking is unimportant, I think. Higher level mechanisms can key on the type name and will know what to do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 17:56:07 UTC