W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > January 2010

Re: RNG schema plans

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:48:12 -0500
Cc: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, Makoto MURATA <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Message-Id: <C76EDDCF-1C33-4F6E-A01A-058CA1783657@nokia.com>
To: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
I think we can continue to reference the RNG schema from within the  
documents directly.

I received a revision of the XML Signature 1.1 RNG schema from Makoto  
(Thanks!) and was able to validate sp-example.xml against it.

I have not yet validated against the signature properties schema.

I'm not sure why we have the URI for xslt defined in the xmldsig-core- 
schema.rnc, but I think it is to indicate that this is one of the  
allowed transforms. Is this correct Makoto? Is there any harm in  
having this xslt URI included?

Makoto asked with regards to XML Encryption,  if it is possible to  
omit both the Type attribute and the MimeType attribute. I believe the  
answer is yes, can someone else please confirm.

Makoto also noted that it would be helpful if our specifications made  
it clear where the text constrained the XSD schema - I think this is a  
good idea.
I have opened an issue on this: ISSUE-178

Is anyone in the WG able to help with testing the RNC schema?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> I have had some trouble validating the XML Signature example  against
> the 1.1 RNC schema using the any-containing-xmldsig.rnc driver (sp-
> example.xml referenced in Signature Properties).  I also attempted to
> create a driver containing signature properties rnc schema and have
> had the same problem.
>
> Thomas had the same difficulty using  a different technique.
>
> I raised an issue for this, ISSUE-177.
>
> Thomas also noted xslt rnc schema referenced in the XML Signature RNC
> schema and raised ISSUE-176 on this.
>
> I propose we remove the RNC material from the various specs and
> consolidate it into a XML Security RelaxNG Schema Note that we publish
> separately from the normative specs. I also suggest we reference this
> draft from the other specs and publish a FPWD at the same time as last
> call.
>
> This has two advantages
>
> 1. decouples the schedules, allows more time to review and test the
> rng schema while progressing XML SIgnature and Signature Properties to
> Last Call
> 2. Puts all the related material in one place.
>
> Comment?
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 17:48:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 January 2010 17:48:55 GMT