[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I can't imagine how it would be useful for anyone to
> add optional zeros in an element which is formally defined to have a
> canonical form that eliminates the trailing zeros.
Because it's the *canonical* form, not the *mandatory* form. The
concern is not about round-tripping, but about the receiver getting what
the sender sent. X.fws/694(right #?) have understated, implicit,
round-tripping going on. That has subtle implications that need to be
investigated.
> But, if you're writing data that others will read, then if you
> wish to be understood, you must follow the rules of the schema
> language you're using.
Sure. But only if you buy into the "one schema per document" thesis,
which we discussed earlier in this thread. I don't buy it, Rusty
doesn't, and neither does Noah (one of the XSD authors, surprise!).
>>And the data folks don't seem to realize that the
>>current crop of security functions requires them
>>think like markup-type folks on the wire.
>
> Not so. ....
"We shall see," says I, smiling serenely....
/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
|
