- From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:33:25 +0900
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: Ari Kermaier <arik@phaos.com>, "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
>I'll defer to the authors if they want to suggest a change that (1) limits >the likelyhood of your confusion arising again, (2) adds "If serialization >is necessary" to step 1 in decryptOctects (or remove it all-together?), and >(3) a similar "if" for steps 2 and 3 in decryptXML depending on the >presense of namespaces. I think that step 1 in both decryptXML() and decryptOctets() can be removed because serialization is performed only for generating a whole node-set from an octet stream containing a decrypted part. But if step 1 is removed, we have to add to step 3 some text saying that X is converted to an octet stream with replacing an encrypted part with its decrypted one, and then is wrapped in the context of C. Thanks, Takeshi IMAMURA Tokyo Research Laboratory IBM Research imamu@jp.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 01:33:37 UTC