- From: Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@zolera.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:50:31 -0500
- To: <reagle@w3.org>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
- Cc: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>
I think it makes sense to add this optional attribute definition to the schema for EncryptionProperties, especially since they might be signed. I'm not sure it is necessary for EncryptedData, but might not hurt. --- Frederick Hirsch Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com/ Information Integrity, XML Security > -----Original Message----- > From: xml-encryption-request@w3.org > [mailto:xml-encryption-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:24 PM > To: xml-encryption@w3.org > Cc: Rich Salz > Subject: Support for xml:lang and xml:space (xml:base?) in > EncryptedType? > > > > On the xmldsig list Rich suggested [1] permitting xml:space for > ds:SignatureProperties and ds:Object. While it's too late to > effect much of > anything in xmldsig, that's not quite the case here if we still > have a lot > of folks that think something is a good idea. > > So while we have the chance, does anyone want this for > EncryptionProperties? For EncryptedData itself? > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0007.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, 18 January 2002 15:42:45 UTC