Re: Proposal: Moving DataModel to XML1.0

Joseph,

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:

"This string begins with the left angle bracket of the start tag of the
element, and ends with the right angle bracket of the end tag of the
element."
"The string starts with the first character following the right angle
bracket of the start tag of the element, and ends with the last character
before the left angle bracket of the end tag of the element."

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.

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.

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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/05/11-proposal.html

Thanks,
Takeshi IMAMURA
Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
imamu@jp.ibm.com



From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>@w3.org on 2001/05/19 05:20 AM

Please respond to "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>

Sent by:  xml-encryption-request@w3.org


To:   "XML Encryption WG " <xml-encryption@w3.org>
cc:
Subject:  Proposal: Moving DataModel to XML1.0



After speaking to Dan Connolly about some of the issue (and walking through
the processing) I've done some edits [1] to tweak some of the encoding
issues (including what to do if the parent document isn't in UTF-8) and
realized if all where doing is character/octet processing (and everything
else is implementation/application) we have a better spec than DOM and
Infoset even, the XML1.0 spec! <smile> Let me know what you think.

(Also, the fact that I'm continuing to distinguish between element and its
content is not an argument that we need to persist, but it's still my
preference.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/05/11-proposal.html
$Revision: 1.6 $ on $Date: 2001/05/18 20:14:29 $

--
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, 28 May 2001 07:28:29 UTC