- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:06:19 +0100
- To: Guillermo Álvaro Rey <alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
I could live with either interpretation, but slightly prefer to allow >1 because: - its the current schema - I think it might be easier for a client who's using field to be able to easily add/find values (though this is a bit tenuous, I admit) But I'm happy to change the schema if coders prefer to only allow one OpaqueData to be present. I doubt that anyone's got a real use for >1 OpaqueData so far, so this ought to be a safe enough change to make if you guys want to do it (please yell if this is untrue). Cheers, Stephen. Guillermo Álvaro Rey wrote: > Hi all, > > Following our client-server tests Tommy and myself were discussing about > the number of OpaqueData elements that the specification *intend* to > allow in an OpaqueClientData element. > > It seems that the way the schema currently stands multiple OpaqueData > children are allowed for a OpaqueClientData element, > > <sequence maxOccurs="unbounded"> > <element ref="xkms:OpaqueData" minOccurs="0"/> > </sequence> > > , but currently only the first one is handled by Tommy's implementation > and so we would like to get confirmation that that's not the expected > behaviour. > > Cheers, > > - -Guillermo > > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 11:05:11 UTC