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...)

[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