Re: [security-services] Addition of more wildcarding

[Ron Monzillo <Ronald.Monzillo@Sun.COM>]

I also liked the idea.

Scott Cantor wrote:

>>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
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>  
>