[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] [xacml-users] REST Profile - PDP Issues
Hal, > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:42 PM > To: Sinnema, Remon; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xacml] [xacml-users] REST Profile - PDP Issues > > > > (Minor point: it is customary to use a namespace qualified name and > > > define the namespace tags near the beginning of the doc. > > > Specifications frequently reference several XML schemas and they > > could > > > contain the same element names. In particular, common words like > > > Request and Response are likely to appear in many schemas.) > > > > Not all formats have the concept of namespaces (e.g. JSON), so in the > > interest of being neutral in terms of representation, I felt I > couldn't > > use namespaces here. I used wording like "XACML request" to address > > this issue. Does that sound reasonable? > > I was thinking primarily of the examples here. <Request> is potentially > ambiguous. <xs:request> with a suitable definition of xs, is not. The example reads: <Request xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:core:schema:wd-17"> <!-- XACML request --> </Request> I do use a (default) namespace here, so I don't see how <Request> can be ambiguous. Thanks, Ray
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]