[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Let me put the problem from another perspective: is it useful to have
> element A in namespace AAA and its attribute B in namespace BBB ?
Of course it is. Why does it have to be "its attribute B". Why can't a
third application use element AAA:A and attribute BBB:B? Here are some
examples from the web services arena:
1. For example, taking a piece of complex markup and adding a
"type" declaration from the Schema namespace.
2. Taking an insurance claim, and adding a security "Id"
attribute from the WS-Security namespace so that I can
digitally sign the claim.
3. Taking an existing element, putting it into a SOAP header
and adding SOAP role or mustUnderstand attributes so that
the element can be meta-data for a particular SOAP processor.
Your proposed solution to this seems to that we should add new syntax and
declare all such "mixin" attributes as global. You can achieve the same
effect by having a defined namespace (e.g., the XML namespace). Your
proposal also requires a central registry of *all* global attributes which
will never fly.
/r$
--
Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
|
