RE: [dss] plans for next draft

["Edward Shallow" <ed.shallow@rogers.com>]

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:trevp@trevp.net] 
Sent: November 18, 2003 11:11 PM
To: Edward Shallow; dss@lists.oasis-open.org
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