- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:32:35 -0500
- To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, www-xkms@w3.org
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 13:51, Stephen Farrell wrote: > I suggest we start by disposing of the most radical comment > I've seen to date - which was Joseph's [1]. (Put slightly > frivolously - should we turn xkms into a SQL-variant :-). I don't want to turn XKMS into a "SQL variant" <smile/>. I have a host of concerns (e.g., which parts are protocol request/action and which parts query; what is this "<Respond><string>" thing, why doesn't it look like the Query structure instead of non-namespace qualified "strings"; etc.) It turns out they way I was able to understand/address the concerns is to think of this as a simple query over a simple protocol. I can easily refactor it as such and address most all of my concerns. I used SQL tokens because many folks are familiar with that but I'm not saying we need to support all of SQL, XML Query, or any such thing. The important thing is that we address the concerns. I'd like to do it in a way that clearly distinguishes the query from the protocol; and cleans up the query (query/respond/answer or where/select/result in my understanding) with respect to namespace qualified and XML typed elements. I hope folks will have a look at [1] and state whether they share the concern, have others, and if they find my strawman useful, or have a variant or alternative. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms-ws/2001Dec/0029.html -- 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, 27 February 2002 14:32:37 UTC