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

Re: what I meant was...

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:01:05 -0500
Message-Id: <200203062301.SAA09599@tux.w3.org>
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

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