Re: Proposal: Moving DataModel to XML1.0

[Resulting Document:
        http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/05/11-proposal.html
        $Revision: 1.10 $ on $Date: 2001/06/04 21:57:59 $ by $Author: reagle 
$

]

At 07:28 5/28/2001, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
>I reviewed "4 Processing Rules" in [1] and got a few comments.
>
>1. I think it is a good idea to use "element" and "content" in the XML 1.0
>spec.  And because what they indicate is clearly defined in the spec, the
>following sentences in 4.1 may not be necessary:

Good, I thought the same but didn't want to delete it just on my  own 
impulse. Now removed.

>2. In 4.1, at the 4th step, it should be noted that a new XML structure
>must be encoded with the encoding of the parent XML document before it is
>placed at the place of unencrypted data.

Ok.

>3. In 4.2, at the 3rd step, a sentence, "the resulting data is to be
>interpretated as an UTF-8 encoded string of XML characters representing an
>element or element content", is wrong because the resulting data can be
>just an octet sequence.  This sentence should be moved to the 4th step.

Decrypt the data contained in the required CipherData /+element. When the 
data is XML, the resulting octets are interpretated as an UTF-8 encoded ...+/


>4. In 4.3, I'm not sure, but if the media type, "text/xml", for an XML
>document is specified to implement, its processing rules should be also
>specified.

What would be necessary beyond what is necessary for any other octet 
sequence? I tweaked that part of the text to make it more general:

>    MediaType '
>           http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/*/*'
>           A user specified media type (e.g., [93]text/xml).


--
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 Monday, 4 June 2001 18:04:50 UTC