Re: [xri-comment] file extension; valid example signature

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>]

Thanks James.


On 4/7/10 7:33 PM, "James Manger" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:

> XRD 1.0 CD02 looks good.
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/v1.0/xrd-1.0.html
>  
>  
> Two small comments:
>  
> 1. Could the media type registration (appendix C) list ³xrd² as a file
> extension, instead of ³none²?
> This will provide a better chance of getting the XRD media type added
> automatically (or added on request) to ³mime.types² files used by common web
> servers. The result is that the media type will be correct by default for most
> uses, which makes the media type usable.
> Without this it seems likely that many XRD files will be served with a the
> wrong media type (perhaps a default of text/plain or
> application/octet-stream), and applications will have to resort to content
> sniffing with associated security risks and interoperability problems.

Does this requires the use of the .xrd file extension? If we make this
change, do we must change host-meta to host-meta.xrd or does this just
enables that alternative?

> 2. The signature on the example signed XRD (appendix B.2) should be valid.
> Currently the spec says ³the signatures are not valid and cannot be
> successfully verified².

I will leave this to the experts to answer.

EHL