- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:01:05 -0500
- To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, www-xkms@w3.org
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 13:03, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Joseph caught us out again:
> > What does Status=Valid mean in the query? Isn't this always the
> > implicit question? Could one just as well ask <Status>Invalid</Status>
> > in the query? (What would this mean?)
>
> I assume its there to make the query & response syntaxes similar
> and doesn't mean much. If so, then I'd just state that and not
> really worry. Too much of a hack? (OTOH, if we do make the binding
> status extensible, then I get concerned about this.)
I'd argue that if you want the xkms:Result in the response (and I assume in
most cases one will) then one should ask for it in the query! Putting an
ambigous token in the Query element (which is otherwise a nice protype of
what the result should look like) confuses things.
Instead of:
<Query>
<Status>Valid</Status>
<ds:KeyInfo>
<ds:KeyName>Joseph...</ds:KeyName>
</ds:KeyInfo>
</Query>
<Respond>
<string>KeyName</string>
<string>KeyValue</string>
</Respond>
one shoudl simply ask for the Status element.
<Query>
<Where>
<KeyName>Joseph</KeyName>
</Where>
<Respond>
<xkms:Status/>
<ds:KeyInfo>
<ds:KeyName/>
<ds:KeyValue/>
</ds:KeyInfo>
</Respond>
</Query>
--
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 Wednesday, 6 March 2002 18:01:07 UTC