W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > May 2008

Fwd: XML Signature RNG Schema

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 17:13:41 -0400
Message-Id: <AFC0AF02-8B66-42DE-8222-BC0E54803B62@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
To: XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Attached is draft RNG Schema for XML Signature that Norm Walsh  
created.  Thank you Norm!

Can members of the WG and implementers please review it and test with  
implementations if possible?

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "ext Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
> Date: May 5, 2008 4:18:52 PM EDT
> To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
> Cc: Hal Lockhart <hlockhar@bea.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: XML Signature RNG Schema
>
> / Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> was heard to say:
> | Would you be willing to craft a complete RNG schema based on the
> | current RNG and XML Schema [1]? This might be very useful given our
> | desire to create a baseline W3C Note.
>
> Attached.
>
> | Comments from Roger Costello:
> | ---
> | Here are my comments:
> |
> | 1. There is a definition in the Relax NG schema that doesn't seem  
> to be
> | equivalent to the corresponding definition in the XML Schema  
> (i.e. they
> | don't seem to be implementing equivalent things).
>
> Uhh. Maybe that was true in the sample I reviewed, but I just cooked
> this one up "from scratch" so it should be 1:1.
>
> | 2. The Relax NG version uses "anyThing".  I don't see that defined
> | anywhere.
>
> Oh, maybe that was me being lazy. Fixed now.
>
> | 3. I generated a sample instance document using the XML Schema.   
> This
> | instance document wouldn't validate against the Relax NG schema.   
> The
> | error
> | occurred with the below <Transform> element.
>
> I haven't tested this schema beyond one example to make sure there
> were no syntax errors and that it passed a smoke test. You should
> definitely run it over everything you your test suite. Report any
> problems you find.
>
> There's a question of style in the comments and the first definition.
> You might want to decide if you'd prefer a consistent style and, if
> you would, which one you'd prefer.
>

>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> -- 
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Convictions are more dangerous enemies
> http://nwalsh.com/            | of truth than lies.-- Nietzsche



Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 21:32:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 May 2008 21:32:06 GMT