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

RE: RNG schema plans

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:46:35 -0500
To: "'MURATA Makoto \(FAMILY Given\)'" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <052201ca9e9e$bd41d4f0$37c57ed0$@2@osu.edu>
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote on 2010-01-25:
>  Why isn't processContents="lax" specified for <xsd:any> within the dcl
> of CanonicalizationMethodType and that of SignatureMethodType?

Hi again, we discussed this on the WG call this morning and the consensus

- omitting processContents="lax" was most likely an accident/mistake in the
original spec

- even though it's a low risk change, past experience and general policy
lead us to conclude that changing the schema is just not something we're
prepared to do, particularly given the low benefit of the change

- however, if the use of "lax" has benefits to your creation of the RNG
schema(s), you can feel free to treat it as though "lax" were used in all
the wildcards consistently and we're comfortable with documenting that in
the separate NOTE that the RNG material will be collected into if it will
help explain matters

The other issue I verified is that my responses to you about the legality of
using the built-in elements like XPath and HMACOutputLength were correct.
Those elements *can* explicitly appear in the content of extension
algorithms defined elsewhere and that's intentional.

-- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 15:47:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:13 UTC