W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Example 2.5.3.3

From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:53:20 +0000
Message-ID: <18ec59cc04110309531d1f202c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shivaram Mysore <shivarammysore@yahoo.com>
Cc: XKMS WG <www-xkms@w3.org>

Hi Shivaram -

> Shouldn't RequestId and ResultMajor be present?[1]

Yes they should  - if this fragment really goes into the spec. I
included a comment in this fragment, questioning if it is a good
example.

My point is that the spec states that the form the notification takes
is outside the scope of the XKMS specification - section 3.2.4. 
However, the fragment in question suggests that the Result markup is
used which for consistency should be replaced with some explanatory
text.

Regards
Tommy


On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:21:46 -0800 (PST), Shivaram Mysore
<shivarammysore@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
>   
> In this example, as per[1] 
>  
> 2.5.3.3Notification<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <Result
> xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
> xmlns:xenc="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#"
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#"/>Shouldn't RequestId and ResultMajor
> be present?[1]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-PR-DRAFT/PR-DRAFT-xkms-part-1.html/Shivaram
> 
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/shivarammysore/
> 
>  ________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com</a 
> 
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 17:53:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:23 GMT