[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: [emergency-comment] CAP Normative Schema is improperly defined
Forwarding to the TC list for discussion.... Begin forwarded message: > From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@wyman.us> > Date: March 28, 2004 3:49:42 PM EST > To: <emergency-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: [emergency-comment] CAP Normative Schema is improperly defined > Reply-To: <bob@wyman.us> > > The normative XML Schema in the CAP specification is improperly > defined and will either generate validation errors or be rewritten to > a form which conforms to XML Schema when input to common XML > Schema processing tools. A major source of the problems is the fact > that what should be anonymous simple types in the CAP schema are > encoded with "name" attributes and are thus not anonymous. For > instance, the CAP schema defines the element msgType as: > > > <element name = "msgType"> > <simpleType name = "msgType" > > <restriction base = "string"> > ... > </restriction> > </simpleType> > </element> > > A proper definition of the msgType element would *not* include the > "name" attribute in the "simpleType" element. Thus, the proper > definition would be: > > > <element name = "msgType"> > <simpleType> > <restriction base = "string"> > ... > </restriction> > </simpleType> > </element> > > This improper use of XML Schema occurs at least 10 times in the CAP > schema (I may have missed a couple...) > Given that most well written XML Schema processors will rewrite or > reject the normative CAP schema, it is hard to understand the > justification for proposing a standard that contains a flawed > normative definition. In this case, for interoperability to be had, it > is necessary to assume that all XML Schema processors will either > ignore or rewrite the offending elements of the schema in a consistent > manner. While this appears to be the case so far, it introduces a risk > of interpretation that is not appropriate for a standard such as CAP. > For a standard such as CAP, it must be recognized that > misinterpretations of CAP messages can lead to life-or-death > consequences. Such a standard should only be accepted if it has > achieved the highest possible levels of clarity and quality. > > bob wyman > > -- R. Allen Wyke Chief Technology Officer awyke@blue292.com 919.806.2440
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]