[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Addition of more wildcarding
> After seeing the back-and-forth, I agree with Scott. Even if we made it > OPTIONAL/RECOMMENDED and in practice required it for doing correlation > and such, we'd confuse the heck out of everybody and everything by > allowing other globally scoped ID attributes. (And he's right about > xml:* being disallowed until XML officially recognizes it and parsers > are updated.) Well, I kind of liked the 2.0 -> 2.1 idea, where we make ID optional in the schema, but mandatory in prose for 2.0, and then switch to xml:id in a 2.1 revision. Reason being this isn't like with 1.0 -> 1.1, where we made 1.0 messages invalid in 1.1. I think it's reasonable to consider giving up forward compatibility with 2.1 to get to the xml:id state of nirvana quicker. This is all assuming that xml:id is on some sort of track to get done and implemented quickly. Otherwise, forget it. > Hmm, maybe we shouldn't add these wildcards after all... We did say > that we need a use case for them. My use case is just that I want people that might want to add an attribute for some reason to not have to extend the schema and add a new derived type for something so trivial. -- Scott
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]