W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Minor comments for Last Call drafts of 20011018

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:08:54 -0500
To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xenc <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20011210220854.D38BF1C@policy.w3.org>
On Thursday 06 December 2001 21:09, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
> Thanks.  I don't see any problem on it.

Ok. BTW I noticed that one of the edits remove the two parameter entities 
from the schema DOCTYPE: <!ENTITY % p ''> <!ENTITY % s ''>. If you provide 
a DOCTYPE (which permits DTD validation) than you should retain these 
entities as they are defined in the schema DTD itself in a way contrary to 
how we want our validation done. It's an odd thing I only discovered after 
working with schema validators, you can read more about it at:

I've re-inserted them.

> By the way, do you remember [1]?  Did it answer your question?
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Nov/0040

Sorry, that email must've got away from me!

On Mon, Nov 19 2001 Takeshi Imamura wrote:
> >Prefix and namespace name of each namespace that is in scope for e, the
> >first element node in X. [is this e different than that in
> >decryptIncludedNodes? -JR]
> It may or may not be different and depends on what node-set is given as
> input.  For example, given the node-set created from the following
> document:...

Could we change the first e then? Maybe to "f" for the first element node 
in X?

> >Name and value of each entity [is this the formal definion of entity
> > from xml1.0 or something else -JR] that is effective for the XML
> > document causing X.
> I'm not sure whether this is the formal definition, but what I intend is
> a set of entity name and value bindings declared in a document type
> declaration.

I think you mean parameter entity then?

> >The MANDATORY URI attribute value of the dcrpt:Except element MUST be a
> >non-empty same-document URI reference [ URI] (i.e., a number sign ('#')
> >character followed by a fragment identifier) or XPointer expression and
> >identify an enc:EncryptedData or enc:EncryptedKey element.
> If we allow an XPointer expression, we have to define how the expression
> is evaluated.  We can refer to the text described in
> Same-Document URI-References of the XML Signature spec for definition,
> but do you think the text is enough?  Also do you think we have to
> support all XPointer expressions, though XML Signature does not?
> You added to the above text the EncryptedKey element being identified.
> Because this transform does nothing for the element, I believe it does
> not make sense.

I've lost the context for this issue. You are advocating that we remove the 
XPointer text, right?
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 17:08:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:05 UTC