- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:24:22 -0500
- To: "cantor.2@osu.edu" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "'MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)'" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
We are going to Last Call on Tuesday and do not have time to revise this schema over time unless we remove it from the documents and place into a separate RNG schema Note. We can reference that note from the documents. From this conversation it looks like this is what we will need to do after all - any disagreement with removing RNG schema from all the documents and placing it into a separate XML Security RNG Schema W3C Note? Opinions on this? regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jan 20, 2010, at 10:29 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote: > MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote on 2010-01-20: >> Ouch! Then, I have to replace anyForeignElement in >> allowAnyForeign.rnc >> by anyElement. But that change would nullify tight constraints >> imposed >> by the first definition. > > I'll try and verify my interpretation on the next call, but I don't > know of > any rule that would preclude what I described, even if it wouldn't be > "typical". > > -- Scott > > >
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 16:25:05 UTC