StatusResult atts [was: Issue with compound request]

No problems at all, Tommy. I'm happy to find that you came to the same
conclusion:) ; and I guess that I should have made more noise on it but
I was waiting until we were going to actually test compound
interoperability.

I will take this opportunity to raise again an issue about StatusResult
atts. [1] I took Tommy conclusion for good but it seems to me, after
testing against Yunhao's server, that he is interpreting the spec as I
was doing at the beginning, so I am confused again. :-/ Are there more
opinions on this?

Cheers,
 - -Guillermo

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2004Sep/0015.html

 

El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 14:31, Tommy Lindberg escribió:
> 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 requests corresponding to requests which were originally made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 13:54:42 UTC