- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:05:45 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: aleksey@aleksey.com, Joseph Ashwood <ashwood@msn.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
On Friday 12 April 2002 16:34, merlin wrote: > I do think it is a pity that we don't > support transforms on the ciphertext; a compression transform could > address this problem. However, I know that this was discussed and > discarded very early. As an aside on your aside, while we didn't specify a transform process (folks didn't think it worth the complexity) I believe nested XML and the CipherData type can accommodate simple transforms [1]. This is completely orthogonal (and consequently, even if it was OPTIONAL in the spec it would be easier to get interop) but is theoretically possible. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Feb/0017.html -- 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 Friday, 12 April 2002 17:05:51 UTC