[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dss] Is a single <Schema> element adequate?
Tommy Lindberg wrote: > Hi Trevor - > > I had accepted bloated payloads as a result of transfering schemas > inline :) I even wrote the code to do it, but based on what you are > saying it looks like I may have misunderstood the intended usage of > the <Schema> element. > > >>I think it's possible to chop down such a schema into a single >>one that contains everything needed? > > > I have never had to that. You wouldn't have an example handy? No - and I may be wrong. It might not be possible to define things in different namespaces with a single schema. Earlier, we used DTDs for this, which may be more flexible. See http://www.aleksey.com/xmlsec/faq.html, section 3.2, for an example. The server only needs to identify ID attributes in the situation where a <ds:Reference> uses a null URI and an XPointer expression, and the client doesn't pass the server the exact Input Documents that match the <ds:Reference>s (so the server has to resolve the <ds:Reference>s by itself). We could decide not to support that case, and require the client to always send Input Documents that match all the <ds:Reference>s. That may be more work for the client, and may result in larger protocol messages. Trevor > > Regards, > Tommy > > > On 5/5/05, Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net> wrote: > >>Tommy Lindberg wrote: >> >>>The <Schema> element in DocumentBaseType and SignatureObject allows >>>for the optional transfer of a single XML Schema. This seems inadequate >> >> > for some use cases such as verifying a signed XML instance that >> > pertains to a schema that in turn imports additional schemas. >> >>Hi Tommy, >> >>note that the schema is only needed in certain usage scenarios. In >>these scenarios, the schema identifies ID attributes so as to help the >>server resolve <ds:Reference>s. The schema doesn't have to be the full >>schema for the document. So even if the full schema imports other >>schemas, I think it's possible to chop down such a schema into a single >>one that contains everything needed? >> >>Trevor >> >>ps: When the <Schema> element is described in the core spec, it refers >>to "section 4.3, step 2". Those references should be changed to >>"section 4.3, step 1". >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]