- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:18:37 -0400
- To: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, ian@w3.org
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
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...) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002May/att-0040/01-draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype-00.txt Additional Information: Magic number(s): none Although no byte sequences can be counted on to consistently identify XENC documents, they will have the sequence http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc# 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. [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 11:19:14 UTC