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

Re: RE: ACTION-581: proposal around IDness of attributes

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:24:02 -0400
To: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>
Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
Message-ID: <fc62940f1d098.4cbaeae2@osu.edu>
> I have updated the schema based on the first option, where each 
> IDAttribute mentions the ID referencing mechanism for that ID 
> only. Have we resolved to go with this option?

I think it's waiting on the determination of whether to keep id() in the XPath subset.

> Here is the schema snippet.   This should close my 
> ACTION-662.  Also related to ACTION-647 and ACTION-661
> <element name="Verification" type="dsig2:VerificationType"/>
> <complexType name="VerificationType">
>         <sequence>
>             <any namespace="##any" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>             <!--
>                 The <disg2:Verification> element can have any of the following subelements in any order,  or have any user defined elements
>                <element ref="disg2:DigestDataLength">
>                <element ref="dsig2:PositionAssertion">
>                <element ref="disg2:IDAttributes">
>             -->

We need to add processContents="lax" to the wildcard.

Do we want ##any with no explicit content, or ##other, with an enumeration of the 2.0-defined elements?

-- Scott
Received on Sunday, 17 October 2010 16:24:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:14 UTC