- From: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:30:29 +0000
- To: berin@wingsofhermes.org
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Hi Berin - >My guess is that you are using Xerces-J? (I'm using Xerces-C) That's right, I am using Xerces-J. Regards, Tommy >From: Berin Lautenbach <berin@wingsofhermes.org> >To: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com> >CC: www-xkms@w3.org >Subject: Re: Enumerations in schema >Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:01:50 +1000 > >Tommy, > >My guess is that you are using Xerces-J? (I'm using Xerces-C) > >Strictly speaking, I don't think the behaviour below can be relied on in >all parsers. As I understand it, Xerces-C behaviour is perfectly >acceptable for a schema validating parser. So if we leave it as is, we are >going to have cases where the messages cannot be validated because the >parser is being very strict. > >Cheers, > Berin > > >tommy lindberg wrote: > >>Berin, Rich >> >>>I guess everyone tested using 'xkms' as the NS prefix. >> >> >>I didn't. :) >> >>It seems to work ok for me; whatever prefix is bound to the XKMS namespace >>must be used for the attributes and elements of type QName. >> >>E.g. if I bind 'km' to the XKMS namespace and used 'xkms' as the prefix >>for a KeyUsage value, this is what Xerces emits: >> >>UndeclaredPrefix: Cannot resolve 'xkms:Signature' as a QName: the prefix >>'xkms' is not declared. >>The value 'xkms:Signature' of element 'km:KeyUsage' is not valid. >> >>Regards, >>Tommy >> >> >>>From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> >>>To: Berin Lautenbach <berin@wingsofhermes.org> >>>CC: "www-xkms@w3.org" <www-xkms@w3.org> >>>Subject: Re: Enumerations in schema >>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:29:27 -0400 (EDT) >>> >>> >>> > <simpleType name="KeyUsageType"> >>> > <restriction base="QName"> >>> > <enumeration value="xkms:Encryption"/> >>> > <enumeration value="xkms:Signature"/> >>> > <enumeration value="xkms:Exchange"/> >>> > </restriction> >>> > </simpleType> >>> > >>> > I'm not a huge expert in XMLSchema, but my understanding is that >>> > enumeration values are literal. >>> >>>You are correct. >>> >>>Bummer. :) >>> >>>I guess everyone tested using 'xkms' as the NS prefix. >>> >>>I *hate* qname's as attribute values. It is very late to change them to >>>URI's, although I know what WS-Security did it at last-call stage. WE >>>could then use Gudge's "open enumeration" technique to list the URI's >>>that >>>are pre-defined by the standard. >>> >>> >>>*Something* has to be fixsed, either the schema enumeration values >>>removed, or QNAME->URI. I vote for the second choice. >>> >>> /r$ >>> >>>-- >>>Rich Salz Chief Security Architect >>>DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com >>>XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html >>>XML Security Overview >>>http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html >>> >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! >>http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 07:31:00 UTC