OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsrp] [CR309] - Specify lax processing of extensions element


A possible issue is that this would rule out "strict" enforcing of schema validation once extensions are used. I appreciate that we do not have many validating parsers and that specifying the location of extension schemas is itself a problem, but I would think some use cases do require all values passed (including extensions) to be validated. E.g. a Banking portlet with secure e-commerce extensions. How about leaving the "strict" default and adding another container type to relax validation?

 

   <complexType name="Extension"> <!-for validating extensions à
     <sequence>
       <any namespace="##any"/> <!- ##any --assuming we remove our current restriction on wsrp schema re-use à
     </sequence>
   </complexType>

   <complexType name="OptionallyCheckedExtension">  <!-put this in an Extentions to relax à
     <sequence>
       <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
     </sequence>
   </complexType>

This 2nd extension type could instead be defined by the extension schema. It would also serve as a warning to developers.

 

Regards,

Andre


From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 01 November 2004 14:29
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp] [CR309] - Specify lax processing of extensions element

 


Location: Types schema
Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
Current Text:
   <complexType name="Extension">
     <sequence>
       <any namespace="##other"/>
     </sequence>
   </complexType>

Proposed Text:
   <complexType name="Extension">
     <sequence>
       <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
     </sequence>
   </complexType>

Reasoning: The current definition of the Extension type makes it hard for producers/consumers/intermediaries to validate the Envelope of messages using extensions.

If a producer/consumer uses extensions but does not make it available to the receiver/intermediary (very common in practice), and if the
receiver/intermediary is an off-the-shelf tool without entity resolution support, it will conclude that the message is invalid.

By adding processContents="lax", we can instruct the receiver/intermediary to try to validate on a best-effort basis.

An alternative is to specify "skip" for processContents. But I'm not sure of any advantage of this choice.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]