Re: [wss] Critical ISSUE (RE: [wss-comment] Enumerations of QNamefault codes)

[John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>]

ext Eve L. Maler wrote:

> The specs say it's a QName, but the schema doesn't make it so.  Thus, 
> this string couldn't be processed identically to other strings that are 
> equivalent to it.  Sounds icky all around.

Agreed...

> I would rather see the keywords enumerated in the specs than in the 
> schema, since the unioning solution seems like a hack (though a cute 
> one) that doesn't buy much.  

+1 for this. If the schema that enumerates the QNames is not connected 
to the rest of the schema, then it is basically worthless for validation 
purposes anyway. Better to enumerate the values and define their 
interpretations in normative language.

- JohnK