- From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:03:58 +0900
- To: reagle@w3.org, merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 03:04:12 UTC
I basically agree on this, but I think we should state such a restriction
on X in Section 2.1.2. I tried to make some tweak to Section 2, which is
attached below. Could you check if I misunderstand anything?
(See attached file: 20020308.html)
Thanks,
Takeshi IMAMURA
Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
imamu@jp.ibm.com
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>@w3.org on 2002/03/08 06:45
Please respond to reagle@w3.org
Sent by: xml-encryption-request@w3.org
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
cc: Takeshi Imamura/Japan/IBM@IBMJP, Hiroshi Maruyama/Japan/IBM@IBMJP,
xml-encryption@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why is Except limited to local fragments?
Ok, now:
3. If there is a single e that is the root element of X , that is not
referenced by any dcrpt:Except elements in R, and its Type attribute is
absent or otherwise indicates octets:
1. Let Y' be decryptOctets(X, e).
2. Return Y
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 03:04:12 UTC