Request for comments: Sorting fields in signature generation
marius at sxip.com
Wed Sep 27 16:19:57 UTC 2006
Yes, you can work around the limitation. But why introduce a
limitation for something widely used and then work around it?
On 27-Sep-06, at 7:43 AM, David Fuelling wrote:
> Just for clarification -- if duplicate parameters of the same name
> are NOT
> allowed by the spec, would one still be able to encode multiple
> values in
> the same key/value pair? Wouldn't this accomplish the same result as
> allowing duplicate key names?
> Not sure if this would be a bad idea, or not, but something like the
> following that separates the two error messages using a semi-colon
> (or some
> other character), and utilizes an escape character if a semi-colon is
> actually part of the message:
> Key | Value
> mode | error
> error | This\; is error message1;This is error message2.
> I'm not convinced this is the way to go, but something to consider,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net]
>> On Behalf
>> Of Josh Hoyt
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:13 PM
>> I think the real topic of this discussion is whether or not multiple
>> parameters with the same name should be allowed by the specification.
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
More information about the specs