W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > December 2003

RE: open issue?

From: Blair Dillaway <blaird@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:10:25 -0800
Message-ID: <0A0B36F65A314D4AB8D2CF1D1FD835F1041E6D78@df-muttley.dogfood>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: "Www-Xkms (E-mail)" <www-xkms@w3.org>

One other nit to resolve. I owe Phill a minor tweak to the examples so
they'll conform to 'best practices'.  They are technically correct, but
the inclusive prefix lists on the Exc. C14N transforms that presently
appear aren't required.  I'll re-generate them and send to Phill by


-----Original Message-----
From: www-xkms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xkms-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 6:19 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Www-Xkms (E-mail)
Subject: Re: open issue?

Thanks Phill,

If we can resolve it by Monday it'll save an iteration on the "request
for CR" text.


Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I seem to remember we changed the schema to ncname or something. I 
> will look into it today...
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
>>Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:56 AM
>>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Www-Xkms (E-mail)
>>Subject: open issue?
>>The last call issues list [1] still shows an open issue (#312).
>>I thought we'd killed 'em all ages ago - do you remember what's up 
>>with this? (We need to resolve it before next w3c hoop.)
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/xkms-spec-lastcall-issues.html
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 12:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:41 UTC