Re: Anonymous types in the DSig Schema

At 13:07 11/7/2000 +0100, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
>In serveral cases it would be useful to be able to reuse Schema
>types already defined in the XML Signature specification.

Hi Gregor,

There's a couple of things I suspect we could do to make the schema a bit 
more robust/extensible, however I first wanted to error on the side of 
simiplicity given parts of the schema specification were changing. However, 
this among others like defining some of  our string fields as regexp facets, 
is quite simple and I think would be a good idea. It's a matter of people 
asking and proposing. Are you extending, restricting, redefining, using 
equiv classes, or subsituting?

>Therefore it would be a great idea to rewrite the schema with
>explicitly named types. I don't think that this would be too
>much work, and the changes do not influence any parties relying
>on the current XML schema definition.
>
>What do you think?

Sounds good. Which structures do you want this over? Are you looking for 
somethign as simple as the following [1]. (BTW: If you just went ahead and 
tweaked the schema appropriately and proposed it (such that any instance in 
the old version is still valid in the new, that'd probably be the easiest 
way to go).)

[1] <element name="KeyValue" type="KeyValueType"/>

   <complexType name="KeyValueType" mixed="true">
     <choice>
       <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       <element ref="ds:DSAKeyValue"/>
       <element ref="ds:RSAKeyValue"/>
     </choice>
   </complexType>


__
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2000 13:57:28 UTC