OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xacml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [xacml] xpath-expression datatype


On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Seth Proctor wrote:

>
> After noodling on this one for a while, and talking with Anne, I'd like
> to propose that we remove this datatype from the core spec and define
> it instead in the profile where it's used. Why? Because it doesn't get
> used anywhere in the core specification.

It is a "base type", and therefore you will not see it in anything. It is
a programatic structure of a very well defined structured type system that
gives us the basis. In fact, it is the exact kind of structures used in
attribute grammars that define syntax since the dawn of compilers. :)

> I think it will cause a great deal of confusion to have a datatype that
> goes unused.

Why are you confused? The fact that every time you use a specific
construct, i.e. <Apply>, <AttributeValue>, etc. you are using
<ExpressionType>, just because you don't see it on paper? It is a function
of the compiler, not of the user.

> In fact, we have three functions that use XPath
> expressions, but they define their parameters in terms of strings, which
> I think will further confuse people.

Where did this come from? Now we are talking about the arguments to
expressions. XPath expressions are not in the type system of the XACML
language. They are an element of XPATH, and defined there. We can only
have them as strings, unless, you want to bring all of XPATH into XACML.

Cheers,
-Polar

> Should we change the parameters to these functions? I don't think so.
> People are already using them, and I don't see any value in changing
> their parameter types and thereby breaking compatability from 1.x to
> 2.0. As always, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but it seems like
> an arbitrary change that wouldn't provide much value. Since we're not
> making that change, I don't think we should include the new datatype in
> the core specification. Basically, I don't think we should define
> anything in the core that we don't use or at justify somewhere.
>
> Thoughts? Might this be a topic for discussion at tomorrow's focus
> group meeting? I don't want to slow down our schedule, but I do want to
> make sure we dot all our t's (heh) which is why I'm currently doing a
> complete review of 2.0.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> seth
>
>
> 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/xacml/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]