- From: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:45:40 +0000
- To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
I'd favor leaving the schema as is in this respect. I have fixed my code to handle the multiplicity correctly; not yet deployed. Regards, Tommy >From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> >To: Guillermo Álvaro Rey <alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie> >CC: www-xkms@w3.org >Subject: Re: Opaque (Client) Data >Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:06:19 +0100 > > > >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 >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 11:46:12 UTC