- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:18:11 -0400
- To: "Tom Gindin" <tgindin@us.ibm.com>, "Peter Tornberg" <tberg@x-obi.com>
- Cc: "xmldsig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, bal@microsoft.com
On Friday 21 September 2001 06:34 pm, Tom Gindin wrote: > By the way, all of the elements in this case except for X509SKI are > plausible candidates for reuse. X509Certificate, X509CRL, and > X509SubjectName are all more likely to be reused in another spec than > X509IssuerSerial. In that case, I think the tweaked schema would need to look like [1]. This wouldn't affect parser or schema validation performance I don't think. It does permit people to borrow our natural language specification of how these things are encoded and such. However, it is rather ugly, if someone wants to re-use it, they could redefine/import them in a new namespace, and it divorces these element types from their context/meaning as properties of a single X509Data structure. These are all minor points, but given our late stage in the game, I'd like to hear more voices in support of this change... [1] Tweaked X509DataType <complexType name="X509DataType"> <sequence maxOccurs="unbounded"> <choice> <element ref="ds:X509IssuerSerial"/> <element ref="ds:X509SKI"/> <element ref="ds:X509SubjectName"/> <element ref="ds:X509Certificate"/> <element ref="ds:X509CRL"/> <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> </choice> </sequence> </complexType> <element name="X509IssuerSerial" type="ds:X509IssuerSerialType"/> <element name="X509SKI" type="base64Binary"/> <element name="X509SubjectName" type="string"/> <element name="X509Certificate" type="base64Binary"/> <element name="X509CRL" type="base64Binary"/> <complexType name="X509IssuerSerialType"> <sequence> <element name="X509IssuerName" type="string"/> <element name="X509SerialNumber" type="integer"/> </sequence> </complexType>
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 17:18:20 UTC