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

Re: Opaque (Client) Data

From: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:45:40 +0000
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY12-F30cl8gjzFRmD0002ac31@hotmail.com>

I'd favor leaving the schema as is in this respect.  I have fixed my code to 
handle the multiplicity correctly; not yet deployed.


>From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>To: Guillermo Álvaro Rey <alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie>
>CC: www-xkms@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Opaque (Client) Data
>Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:06:19 +0100
>I could live with either interpretation, but slightly prefer
>to allow >1 because:
>- its the current schema
>- I think it might be easier for a client who's using field
>   to be able to easily add/find values (though this is a bit
>   tenuous, I admit)
>But I'm happy to change the schema if coders prefer to only
>allow one OpaqueData to be present.
>I doubt that anyone's got a real use for >1 OpaqueData so far,
>so this ought to be a safe enough change to make if you guys
>want to do it (please yell if this is untrue).
>Guillermo Álvaro Rey wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>Following our client-server tests Tommy and myself were discussing about
>>the number of OpaqueData elements that the specification *intend* to
>>allow in an OpaqueClientData element.
>>It seems that the way the schema currently stands multiple OpaqueData
>>children are allowed for a OpaqueClientData element,
>>         <sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">
>>            <element ref="xkms:OpaqueData" minOccurs="0"/>
>>         </sequence>
>>, but currently only the first one is handled by Tommy's implementation
>>and so we would like to get confirmation that that's not the expected
>>  - -Guillermo

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 11:46:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:42 UTC