Re: Enumerations in schema

Hello Berin,

This is just a confirmation message for closing the decision cycle.

The comment you reported[1] were assigned issue 319-bl[1].

The Editor's draft of the XKMS schema was changed to use enumerations
and full URIs.

Please reply to this message if you have any objections as to the
way the changes were incorporated.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2004Jul/0004.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/cr-issues/issues.html#319-bl

-jose

On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 06:58:54PM +1000, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> 
> G'day all,
> 
> Am not sure if this has been raised before, but I've been playing with 
> schema validation of the various messages and have run into a problem 
> with Xerces rejecting messages because of the (amongst others) KeyUsage 
> Elements.  In particular, the schema defines the KeyUsageType 
> enumeration as follows :
> 
> 	<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.  So if I use a different qualifier (or 
> even no qualifier) it will fail strict validation.
> 
> E.g. the snippet
> 
> <xk:KeyUsage 
> xmlns:xk="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#">xk:Signature</xk:KeyUsage>
> 
> will fail, whereas
> 
> <xk:KeyUsage 
> xmlns:xkms="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#">xkms:Signature</xkms:KeyUsage>
> 
> will succeed.
> 
> I think KeyBindingStatus will also have the same problem.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding XMLSchema?  If not - do we really need to 
> enumerate these values in the schema?
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Berin
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:13:45 UTC