Subject: RE: [wsdm] [muws] comments on MUWS spec
William, I am not necessarily opposed to using Qnames and XSD to define attributes, I just want to make sure that we find the right balance between complexity and functionality. It seems that we are really talking about is a how to implement a "WSDM MIB". Qnames are only required if XSD is the WSDM MIB notation. The question I have is XSD the best approach to define a WSDM MIB? I am not opposed to that, but I am not convinced yet either. Jeff Bohren Product Architect OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to www.opennetwork.com/eval. -----Original Message----- From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:31 PM To: John Fuller Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] [muws] comments on MUWS spec > to clarify, the idea was that > > <xsd:pattern value="unavailable.?\c*"/> (corrected) > > would allow the substate > > unavailable.transporterror.oraclespecifictransporterror Who would define "transporterror"? All I am trying to do, is allow someone (not necessarily the base spec) to define "transporterror" in their namespace and someone else to define a substate of "transporterror" (like "oraclespecifictransporterror") and express it. William To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou p.php.