Agreed. But would we not be obliged to define at least the default Timestamp
type (URI) in the core ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:]
Sent: November 18, 2003 11:11 PM
To: Edward Shallow;
Subject: RE: [dss] plans for next draft
At 10:29 PM 11/18/2003 -0500, Edward Shallow wrote:
>Number 4) below sounds good, but if you are going for extensibility why
>not further reduce ContentTimestamp and SignatureTimestamp to simply
>Timestamp
Good idea.
>defaulting to Signature Timestamp. Examples of flat Timestamp types:
>Content, Signature, SigAndRefs, RefsOnly, DataObjects, Archive.
Should we provide URIs for these, in the core spec?
I wouldn't mind omitting them, for now, and letting profiles define the URIs
they need. And then later on, we can decide if we want to refactor some
into the core.
Trevor
