W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > March 2002

RE: versioning...

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:18:50 -0800
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F4058699B9@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'" <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>, www-xkms@w3.org
> If this is the case, then it should be defined as such. 
> However I wonder 
> how useful automated mechanisms really find this? (I expect 
> not at all.) 
> Plus, if you change the syntax or processing the data will 
> have a different 
> namespace anyway.

I will copy in the info from the SAML spec.

> If someone can present a scenario and definitions of what 
> these things mean 
> I might be more comfortable; otherwise it's seems to be 
> optional/advisable 
> cruft that's best left out.

This is a pretty standard approach for protocol compatibility
testing. It is already defined in HTTP.


Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 13:18:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:38 UTC