- From: Berin Lautenbach <berin@wingsofhermes.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:04:44 +1000
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "www-xkms@w3.org" <www-xkms@w3.org>
Ooohh. I like Gudge's "open enumeration" (did a search for it). For those who haven't seen it : http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00011.html Cheers, Berin Rich Salz wrote: >> <simpleType name="KeyUsageType"> >> <restriction base="QName"> >> <enumeration value="xkms:Encryption"/> >> <enumeration value="xkms:Signature"/> >> <enumeration value="xkms:Exchange"/> >> </restriction> >> </simpleType> >> >>I'm not a huge expert in XMLSchema, but my understanding is that >>enumeration values are literal. > > > You are correct. > > Bummer. :) > > I guess everyone tested using 'xkms' as the NS prefix. > > I *hate* qname's as attribute values. It is very late to change them to > URI's, although I know what WS-Security did it at last-call stage. WE > could then use Gudge's "open enumeration" technique to list the URI's that > are pre-defined by the standard. > > > *Something* has to be fixsed, either the schema enumeration values > removed, or QNAME->URI. I vote for the second choice. > > /r$ > > -- > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html > XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 07:04:48 UTC