W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > December 2009

RE: [closed] Re: p:http-request: authentication concerns

From: Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:39:32 +0200
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4b2bccad.1f145e0a.2619.2697@mx.google.com>
For minor additions like that, I think something like XProc 1.1 may be
created in the near future, when this method becomes official, no?

Though to be honest, if all enumerated option values were QNames, it would
be nice indeed. The more extensibility hooks, the better ^_^ .

>From a user's point of view, I can live without it. Just my 2 cents...

Vasil Rangelov

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Florent Georges
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:46 PM
To: Norman Walsh
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: [closed] Re: p:http-request: authentication concerns

> Not before that spec is finished.

  Not sure my comment was clear.  I do not suggest to do anything
explicit regarding this draft.  But add something like "the auth
method 'token' is reserved for potential future usage by this
REC".  If not, I bet some implementations will use it as an
implementation-defined method (while other implementations will
use the other consistent words for the same spec).

  Another solution would be to define the value of the auth-method
to be a QName, and forbidding implementation-defined methods to
be in no namespace. (for now, this attribute is defined to be a
string, so the auth-method "ff .__+=1 1.%" is legal)


Florent Georges
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 18:41:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:27 UTC