[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Additional comments on core-02
Scott Cantor wrote: >>We hadn't wanted to use wording saying the (non-schema-snippet) prose >>literally "takes precedence", but in fact that's the only practical >>solution when we have these added constraints. What we've got is >>therefore confusing. > > It takes precedence, but only in the sense that something might be permitted > by the schema and not permitted by the text, and is therefore not permitted. > In the majority of cases, I think we've avoided that, but a couple still > exist. And we probably should try and identify them and make sure they stand > out. > > But the oppposite isn't true...if it's outlawed by the schema, the text in > no way should be construed as to permit it. And the problem with English is > that it's hard to be precise, and I just don't want to convey the impression > that one can understand the syntax without a working knowledge of XSD. > > We could have used RELAX, etc., and I'm not taking a position on the > wonderfulness or lack thereof of XSD, but it's what we used. > > >>However, the normative text in this specification provides the >>authoritative interpretation of all SAML semantics and processing. (In >>some cases, the text deliberately defines constraints that go beyond those > > >>expressed in the schema documents.)" > > > I'm a little uncomfortable with the looseness of that in terms of not making > clear that while we sometimes outlaw schema-valid XML, we never "inlaw" ;) > schema-invalid XML. But in practical terms, we need to give a clear signal to implementors about what to "respect". Maybe we need to make double-sure that we never get the prose wrong in describing the schema effects (I tried to do a thorough job prior to cd-01 but it may have gotten out of sync again or I might have missed something). But it's impractical to tell people, "If the difference favors tighter constraints in the prose than the schema, use the prose; if it favors tighter constraints in the schema than the prose, use the schema!" Come to think of it, I suppose we could say that the "tighter constraint" is always in force, but then I'd worry that the meaning of "tighter" requires interpretation... Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]