RE: [wss] Binary & XML tokens

["Don Flinn" <flinn@alum.mit.edu>]

Substitution groups are a way to designate element declarations as
substitutes for other element declarations.  You would have a head element
with other elements derived from the head element.  These elements could
also act as a head with other elements derived from them. The way I am
thinking of this is that, for example, the BinaryToken would be made
abstract and the X.509 Token and XCBF tokens would be derived from the
abstract Binary Token.  The derived tokens can override or inherit the
abstract token's attributes, etc.  The idea of making the Binary Token
abstract is that it forces an implementor to use one of the derived types
not the Binary Token type.  Of course the Binary Token should also be
optional.

Would one of the XML guru's please correct any errors in my above thinking.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Schwarz [mailto:jerry.schwarz@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:52 PM
To: Don Flinn; WSS
Subject: Re: [wss] Binary & XML tokens


At 12:02 PM 5/1/2003, Don Flinn wrote:
>In looking at the Binary Security Tokens and XML Tokens in the core spec,
it
>seems to me that these are best described as abstract elements or types, in
>the XML schema sense. They, in effect, are not useful on their own, needing
>some other token element, as defined in the appropriate profiles, to make
>them useful, which is what an abstract element in XML schema is.  When an
>element or type is declared abstract, a member of the substitution group
>must appear in the instance document.


Sorry I'm pretty ignorant about schema's. What is the substitution group?

>  Which is what I believe is our
>intent.  Therefore, shouldn't these two types be abstract elements or types
>in the text and the schema?
>
>Don
>
>
>====================
>Donald Flinn
>Managing Partner
>Flint Security
>Phone: (781) 856-7230
>e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
>Web Page: http://dflinn.home.attbi.com