- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:43:40 -0500
- To: <hirsch@zolera.com>
- Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org>, <imamu@jp.ibm.com>, <maruyama@jp.ibm.com>
On Thursday 01 November 2001 12:09, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > Shouldn't the URI attribute of the Except element be required? The schema > says it is optional. Ok, I've reflected your tweaks (with my own teaks) and the URI as required in [new revision: 1.10]. > I also find the function name noDecryptNodes confusing and sugggest an > alternative: decryptIncludedNodes I agree the names are a bit confusing ... On another similar note for parallelism, if we use "noDecryptNodes" (subject to change) perhaps we should call the other decryptNode)? Regardless, I defer this and the following question to Takeshi and Hiroshi (and the list). > I also have a question regarding transform generation. Should the > document be canonicalized before creating the Decryption Transform, as > well as after? -- * I will be in France from 3-9 November for the W3C AC Meeting. 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 Thursday, 1 November 2001 17:43:45 UTC