- From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:31:53 +0100
- To: Guillermo Álvaro Rey <alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Sorry about that, Guillermo. I checked the issues list - I should have checked the archive too. Regards Tommy ----- Original Message ----- From: Guillermo Álvaro Rey <alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:24:23 +0100 Subject: Re: Issue with compound request To: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com> Cc: www-xkms@w3.org Hi Tommy and all, I had pointed out this issue but found no response. I agree with you that either the schema should be updated to allow PendingRequests in a CompoundRequest or that the sentece should be removed from the specification. My client currently follows the schema but changes could be done if the schema was going to be modified. Regards, - -Guillermo El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 12:23, Tommy Lindberg escribió: In the process of trying to get my head around the compound messaging and I discovered what I believe is an inconsistency in the spec. The last senctence in Section 2.8, which goes like this: "Alternatively a client MAY issue a compound request containing multiple inner pending requests corresponding to requests which were originally made independently." is in conflict with both the schema and also with text elsewhere in the spec - PendingRequests's are not allowed in a CompoundRequest. If this feature is required then the schema needs to be updated otherwise we'll get away with removing the offending sentence. Regards Tommy
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 13:32:01 UTC