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

Re: RNG schema plans

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:24:22 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "'MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)'" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <02690E51-1852-4F82-BADB-5FA9CEDC5F80@nokia.com>
To: "cantor.2@osu.edu" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
We are going to Last Call on Tuesday and do not have time to revise  
this schema over time unless we remove it from the documents and place  
into a separate RNG schema Note. We can reference that note from the  
documents.

 From this conversation it looks like this is what we will need to do  
after all - any disagreement with removing RNG schema from all the  
documents and placing it into a separate XML Security RNG Schema W3C  
Note?

Opinions on this?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jan 20, 2010, at 10:29 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:

> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote on 2010-01-20:
>> Ouch!  Then, I have to replace anyForeignElement in  
>> allowAnyForeign.rnc
>> by anyElement.  But that change would nullify tight constraints  
>> imposed
>> by the first definition.
>
> I'll try and verify my interpretation on the next call, but I don't  
> know of
> any rule that would preclude what I described, even if it wouldn't be
> "typical".
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 16:25:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 January 2010 16:25:06 GMT