[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wss] Critical ISSUE (RE: [wss-comment] Enumerations of QNamefault codes)
It helps human reader because they can see, in the schema, what some pre-defined QNAME's are. > allows all other QNames, and still makes the wsse: prefix a unique > first-class citizen. Only if the receiver treats the incoming data as a string, and not as a qname. Since the specs say it's a qname, I think the concern of making some strings "special" is more theoretical than practical, and more than outweighed by having a technique to (er) enumerate any architected QNAME values. Personally, I consider it yet another arugment against qname's instead of uri's, but it's too late to fix soap. /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]