Re: Comments for Decryption Transform

On Tuesday 17 September 2002 08:51 am, Susan Lesch wrote:
> Belated congratulations on your Decryption Transform Candidate
> Recommendation [1]. Here are just a few comments.

Susan, thank you for the comments, though I apologize for not explicitly 
pointing you to the Editors' version for comment which already had some 
fixes. However, it now includes your suggestions as well:
  http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-decrypt
  $Revision: 1.62 $ on $Date: 2002/09/17 19:15:32 $ 

> Why does 3.1 link namespace to [XML]? I'd guess Namespaces in XML instead
> (that would be a new Reference).

We're referring to the dynamic document which I now link to:
  http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace

> In 3.1 function two, are &xenc;Element and &xenc;Content markup
> artifacts? If they aren't they could be marked up <code>.

These are a convention used in the xmldsig and xenc documents to provide a 
shortname for identifiers. Since the following is rather verbose:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#Element
The xenc specification defines the following entity:
  <!ENTITY xenc 'http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#'>
and then we use the &xenc;Element short-hand in prose. I've added this 
explanation to both the xenc specs.

> Finally, in References, the URIs should not be links.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#ref-REF-TITLES

I don't think Dan is requesting that the URIs should not be links. I think 
he argues that any URI that appears *should* be hypertextual. Instead, he 
is arguing the URIs should not be there in the Reference section. In 
general, I agree with that but we do so as a long standing convention from 
xmldsig so as to make the specifications easily publishable as RFCs which 
are non-hypertextual. 

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-decrypt-20020802

Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 15:32:23 UTC