Re: Semantics of xenc:EncryptedData/@Type

My understanding was that we didn't want to go out of our way to enable 
someone to encrypt part of element content. But as you note, we didn't have to do 
anything special to enable it -- follows naturally from our spec and XML1.0 
-- and some might find it useful. So unless we find and instance where this 
someone does have a pragmatic problem with it, I don't think we should 
complicate the spec in order to prohibit it.

On Friday 04 January 2002 04:46, Christian Geuer-Pollmann wrote:
> The reason why I asked is the following: During the Encryption Workshop
> in SFO/2000, I asked whether it's possible to encrypt parts of a 'pure'
> Text Node like this:
> <DATA>This contains secret parts</DATA>
> <DATA>This contains <xenc:EncryptedData Type="Content" /> parts</DATA>
> And the consensus was that this should not be possible (didn't find that
> in the minutes, but I have in mind that I ). It was said that if
> somethings is important enough to be encrypted, it should also be
> importat enough to have it's own markup and then use Element encryption.
> But the current spec allows encrypting parts of a Text Node (and it's
> very simple to implement ;-). Additionally, if we want to allow
> cut-and-paste for protocol scenarios where ciphertext from one msg is
> pasted into another msg, it MUST be possible to do something like this.
> Christian


Joseph Reagle Jr.       
W3C Policy Analyst      
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair
W3C XML Encryption Chair

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 12:32:15 UTC