- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:50:15 -0400
- To: "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
- Cc: "Hammond, Ben" <bhammond@rsasecurity.com>
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 15:35, Dournaee, Blake wrote: > Given an input Document D: > > <doc> > <elem1> foo1 </elem1> > <elem2> foo2 </elem2> > <elem3> foo3 </elem3> > </doc> > Am I missing something here? Is there an obvious solution to this? It > seems like a simple case that might have been overlooked. The correct approach is to have two EncryptedData's as you suggested. We did spend a lot of time on this question of what granularity we would encrypt at, and as Merlin and Ed suggested, absent a compelling scenario we converged on content and element content for fear of complexity. If you really have scenarios like this, it might seem a little verbose, but it preserves the XML semantics better than other solutions I can think of. (If you encrypt elem1 and elem2, that isn't going to be well formed either. ) Our #Element and #ElementContent are nicely grounded in the XML 1.0 spec, we know very well... Regardless, I haven't represented this issue in the issues document as I'm taking it as historical/informational. Let me know if this is counter to your intent. -- 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 Monday, 20 May 2002 14:50:18 UTC