- From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:45:09 -0400
- To: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I'm for specifying the Encoding attribute as an URI. Ed > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org> > To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>; <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> > Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org>; <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 12:38 PM > Subject: Re: Error in xmldsig REC > > > > > > 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 Wednesday, 5 June 2002 09:45:19 UTC