W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > August 2003

RE: BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE PROPOSAL

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:39:03 -0700
Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D239F@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com>
To: "'Chopra, Dipak'" <dipak.chopra@sap.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "Www-Xkms (E-mail)" <www-xkms@w3.org>
The code used to create the examples is not an issue, the change is one
line.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chopra, Dipak [mailto:dipak.chopra@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:19 PM
To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; Www-Xkms (E-mail)
Subject: RE: BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE PROPOSAL


I agree. IMHO, if one needs to refer to an ID type in the same document, one
can use IDREF and if ID type attribute is in other document, one can use
NCName. This seems like a natural choice as compared to anyURI approach.
 
Dipak
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Www-Xkms (E-mail)
Cc: Chopra, Dipak
Subject: RE: BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE PROPOSAL
 
Further to this point I am now convinced that we MUST make the change.
 
A reference of the form RequestID="#xyz" is to a section of a document and
not a document reference. In addition as the stem is not specified the
default is the message itself.
 
I now believe that the issue is actually a bug rather than a cosmetic issue.
We are not strictly XML compliant. i would prefer to fix that before we get
into interop.
 
        Phill
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 22:39:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:20 GMT