W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Enumerations in schema

From: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:25:27 +0000
To: berin@wingsofhermes.org
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY12-F36YJRZlGGR7h0000739a@hotmail.com>

Hi Berin -

>I'm not a huge expert in XMLSchema, but my understanding is that 
>enumeration values are literal.  So if I use a different qualifier (or even 
>no qualifier) it will fail strict validation.

According to 3.2.18 of [1] there is a mapping between literals in the 
lexical space to the value space prior to validation - this requires an 
inscope namespace prefix binding.

The behaviour I see in the parser that I use seems to be in accordance with 
this.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#QName

Regards,
Tommy

>From: "tommy lindberg" <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
>To: berin@wingsofhermes.org
>CC: www-xkms@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Enumerations in schema
>Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:30:29 +0000
>
>
>Hi Berin -
>
>>My guess is that you are using Xerces-J?  (I'm using Xerces-C)
>
>That's right, I am using Xerces-J.
>
>Regards,
>Tommy
>
>>From: Berin Lautenbach <berin@wingsofhermes.org>
>>To: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
>>CC: www-xkms@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Enumerations in schema
>>Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:01:50 +1000
>>
>>Tommy,
>>
>>My guess is that you are using Xerces-J?  (I'm using Xerces-C)
>>
>>Strictly speaking, I don't think the behaviour below can be relied on in 
>>all parsers.  As I understand it, Xerces-C behaviour is perfectly 
>>acceptable for a schema validating parser.  So if we leave it as is, we 
>>are going to have cases where the messages cannot be validated because the 
>>parser is being very strict.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>	Berin
>>
>>
>>tommy lindberg wrote:
>>
>>>Berin, Rich
>>>
>>>>I guess everyone tested using 'xkms' as the NS prefix.
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't. :)
>>>
>>>It seems to work ok for me; whatever prefix is bound to the XKMS 
>>>namespace must be used for the attributes and elements of type QName.
>>>
>>>E.g. if I bind 'km' to the XKMS namespace and used 'xkms' as the prefix 
>>>for a KeyUsage value, this is what Xerces emits:
>>>
>>>UndeclaredPrefix: Cannot resolve 'xkms:Signature' as a QName: the prefix 
>>>'xkms' is not declared.
>>>The value 'xkms:Signature' of element 'km:KeyUsage' is not valid.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Tommy
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
>>>>To: Berin Lautenbach <berin@wingsofhermes.org>
>>>>CC: "www-xkms@w3.org" <www-xkms@w3.org>
>>>>Subject: Re: Enumerations in schema
>>>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >     <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
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! 
>>>http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 08:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:22 GMT