- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:45:25 -0500
- To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 12:21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Without hardly any schmea expertise at all to back me up, I > strongly prefer the former (flat). > > Question: is there any implementation benefit to using > abstract types? If not, I think they're just not worth > it. From a conceptual point of view, it helps present how the two structures are related, and how they differ, we've done a similar thing in XML Encryption with the EncryptedType which EncryptedData and EncryptedKey derive from. Not a biggie regardless though. Of course, I'd like there to be one request and it should be the nature of the query that determines what it gets back. -- 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 Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:45:28 UTC