- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:38:37 -0400
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
On Friday 31 May 2002 09:32 pm, Martin Duerst wrote: > At 15:59 02/05/31 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote: > >While looking at xenc's use of the MimeType and Encoding attributes I > >noticed that in the text we say Encoding="base64" but the schema says > ><attribute name='Encoding' type='anyURI' use="optional"/>. > Your mail is a bit out of context. Are you talking about XML Sig, > or XML Enc? And which element(s)? Both. I noticed the error in xenc, wondered where it came from and found it in xmldsig. So one way to answer my question is, what do we want for xenc? Do we want: <EncryptedData MimeType="text/xml" Encoding="base64"/> or <EncryptedData MimeType="text/xml" Encoding="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#base64"/> (This confusion is the result of my occasional attempt use actual identifiers instead of non-qualified strings and get IETF/IANA to assign such identifiers... Didn't manage to do this in xmldsig or xenc, maybe next time around!). On the xmldsig front, I think it'll be easier to change the example in the text than the schema, so that's the likely path I will pursue. > it is very worthwhile to make sure that in the text, every > single instance of the word 'encoding' is qualified > (e.g. 'character encoding', 'transfer encoding',...), and > that the differences are pointed out clearly. Yes, my nativity that the task of representing and sending characters would be straight-forward seems inexhaustible. <smile/> I thought some ambiguity for the Encoding attribute wouldn't be too harmful as it's a informational piece of information used at the applications discretion. However, the syntax difference between the schema and the example in the spec do need to be remedied.
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 12:39:35 UTC