Re: Draft registration for application/xenc+xml

On Wednesday 22 May 2002 18:26, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>    @@ Should we include a redundant type parameter of the encrypted
>    object? @@

I realized after I sent this that there is another issue that merits 
consideration. I borrowed text [1] from the rdf application and it seems 
fairly sensible but begs the question as to whether a document that has an 
element encrypted should have its media type changed. I would argue "no" 
(and this issue is being discussed by the W3C TAG [2]). But absent TAG 
resolution, is anyone opposed to text that states "However, the 
application/xenc+xml type name MUST only be used for data objects in which 
the root element is from the XENC namespace."

Also, Ian, in [3] what does it mean that the registration should be part of 
the REC? That I should have an appendix in the spec with a copy of my 
request? (seems odd...)


Additional Information:

     Magic number(s): none

     Although no byte sequences can be counted on to consistently
     identify XENC documents, they will have the sequence to identify the XENC namespace.
     This will usually be towards the top of the document, but may occur
     further down if parts of the XML document are being encrypted.



Joseph Reagle Jr.       
W3C Policy Analyst      
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair
W3C XML Encryption Chair

Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 11:19:14 UTC