RE: XKMS - errors in CompoundResult?

This message is in reply to issue #306 [1] that you raised during the XKMS
WG Last 
Call request on behalf of the XML Protocol WG.

The changes you proposed to the specification have been accepted and the
revised version of the specification may be seen at [2]

At this point the work group believes all concerns raised in issue #306 have
been addressed and that the entire issue is closed, unless we hear
otherwise. (see [3] for additional resolutions)

The XKMS WG would like to thank you for reviewing and commenting on the
draft XKMS specification.

Regards, 
Phillip Hallam-Baker on behalf of the XKMS WG
VeriSign Inc.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003May/0008.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS20030804/xkms-part-1.html
    http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS20030804/xkms-part-2.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Aug/0005.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Lockhart [mailto:roland.lockhart@entrust.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:03 PM
To: 'pbaker@verisign.com'
Cc: 'www-xkms@w3.org'
Subject: XKMS - errors in CompoundResult?


Hi, 
I think there are 2 errors in the XKMS last call schema at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xkms2-20030418/Schemas/xkms.xsd:
1. The choice of inner results in CompoundResult should have a minOccurs
attribute of 0, rather than defaulting to 1. The text at paragraph 77 of the
XKMS spec part I indicates that there can be zero or more inner responses.
This makes sense because a service which does not support compound requests
will want to return an empty CompoundResult.
2. The comment field just above the CompoundResult definition mistakenly
refers to it as "CompoundResponse". 
- Roland

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 14:53:31 UTC