Re: [dss-x] Results of today's ETSI's 'Review comments on draft OASIS DSS V2 spec'

[Ernst Jan van Nigtevecht <EJvN@Sonnenglanz.net>]

Hi,
I second your proposal to accept the ordering/sequence of xml elements.
XML is not json and vice versa :-)  so I expect that xml developers will
benefit from a more straightforward structure...

Regards

Ernst Jan

Andreas Kuehne schreef:
> Hi again,
> 
> I would like to propose a solution for the schema glitch.
> The cause for all the trouble is my attempt to introduce independence of
> element ordering (as it is build-in in JSON) in the XML schema, too.
> Tried to solve this using choices wrapped in sequences. But this results
> in additional problems (like the ones Juan Carlos pointed out or
> alternatively in the loss of cardinality restrictions). Recommendations
> on this 'non-ordering' topic involve not applicable elements (xs:all) or
> madly complex constructs using additional groups based on their cardinality.
> 
> So I would to tend to accept the ordering of sequences in XML schema and
> stop trying to bend it until it somehow mimics JSON schema.
> 
> What's your opinion in this?
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Andreas
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> I have to admit that Juan Carlos pointed out two severe cardinality
>> flaws in the XML schema regarding InputDocuments and OptionalIn- and
>> -OutputTypes. I'm a bit upset that my test cases didn't detect these
>> problem upfront and need to track down this issue.
>>
>> Other comments were also quite interesting but not of that severity.Â
>> But as far as I unde3rstood the process we need to fix the problem and
>> start the review period again.
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>