- From: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:47:18 -0400
- To: Public XML Encryption List <xml-encryption@w3.org>
I think re-using XSet does have some merit but the EncryptedNode (alias EncryptedData) may also contain data that was not originally XML (eg. an encrypted, base64ed GIF) and so the value of the Type attribute could not be limited to XSet-defined representations. Ed -----Original Message----- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 4:32 PM To: Public XML Encryption List Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Encrypted Node URI and NodeType For those interested in issues related to representing XMl structure explicitly (if parts of them come to be encrypted), you might be interested in XSet. Forwarded Text ---- >From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk> >Thanks Joseph. Some more references on this topic are at >http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200008/msg00412.html (XSet) >http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200008/msg00239.html > >XML in RDF in XML via XSLT: an infoset implementation (Dan Connolly) >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0061.html > >There's also a brief XMLhack.com piece on XSet etc at >http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=696 > >Dan End Forwarded Text ---- _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 19:41:03 UTC