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

Re: Fwd: XML Signature RNG Schema

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:40:24 +0200
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <20080523134024.GF292@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org>

On 2008-05-06 16:07:29 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> ./dname/diffRFCs-1-IAIK.xml:2: element KeyInfo: Relax-NG validity error : Expecting element Object, got KeyInfo
> ./dname/diffRFCs-1-IAIK.xml:2: element Object: Relax-NG validity error : Expecting an element got text
> ./dname/diffRFCs-1-IAIK.xml:2: element Object: Relax-NG validity error : Element Object has extra content: text
> ./dname/diffRFCs-1-IAIK.xml:2: element KeyInfo: Relax-NG validity error : Element Signature has extra content: KeyInfo
> ./dname/diffRFCs-1-IAIK.xml fails to validate

Looking at these in more detail, it looks like the test case files
in question should be valid.  They do validate against the xsd, and
against the "old" RNG schema.

There are therefore at least two problems with the proposed RNG
schema:

- Object can have mixed content
- the optional KeyInfo doesn't seem to actually work.  I don't quite
  know why.

Help appreciated, as I'm neither a schema nor an RNG guru.

Thanks,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 13:41:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 May 2008 13:41:02 GMT