W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Usage of wsu:Id and xml:id in the WS Policy XML Schema

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:12:07 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C02CB789A@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Option B is awful.
Option A is bad.
Option C is somewhat bad, and the best solution.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:16 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Usage of wsu:Id and xml:id in the WS Policy XML Schema
> This mail is based on some offline conversation between Asir, 
> Chris, Paul and me.
> The XML Schema document for the WS-Policy LC WD is not yet 
> updated. The reason is that the latest revision
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy.x
> sd?rev=1.6
> has a problem with the schema update for the resolution for 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3560 (enable 
> the usage of
> xml:id):
> If you use xml:id at the <Policy element> in an instance with 
> the current schema, you will get an error. You can't use 
> xml:id, typed as an ID, on an element which has an ID 
> attribute (like wsu:Id) specifically declared for it.
> There are three solutions for the problem:
>   a) publish two flavors of the schema, one with xml:id, one 
> with wsu:Id
>   b) declare two subtypes which are accessible via xsi:type:
> <Policy ... xsi:type="xid-flavor" xml:id="boo" ...> versus <Policy ...
>   xsi:type="wsu-flavor" wsu:id="boo" ...>
>   c) delete the explicit reference to <xs:attribute ref="wsu:Id"/> .
> This would make both xml:id and wsu:Id extensibility points.
> I have a high preference for c), including a note in the WD 
> to warn schema users (don't use other ID attributes than 
> these two), to avoid the confusion created by deleting the 
> explicit reference to <xs:attribute ref="wsu:Id"/>.
> I have not opened an issue on this and not reopened 3560, 
> since the normative text has precedence over the schema 
> anyway. Hopefully we can resolve this without a LC issue.
> Felix
Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 19:12:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:20 UTC