RE: Substitution Groups Reconsidered

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

At 10:49 AM 9/17/01 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >  Since we own and maintain the whole SAML schema
> > ourselves, and
> > since we will turn off the ability of extension schemas to
> > have this type
> > of control (with the "block" attribute),
>
>I don't agree that we will do that. It would be a major
>catastrophe.
>
>If such an arbitrary decision was taken it would seriously
>an negatively affect VeriSign's interest in SAML.

I'm not talking about restricting the ability of extension schemas to 
extend types ("final"), but rather about restricting their ability to 
declare that extension elements can substitute themselves for any SAML 
element they like ("block").  I thought we agreed that substitution in 
extensions was bad, because it could cause major confusion if the extension 
schema is not available.  This was basically the same rationale behind 
*using* substitution groups in the native schema -- it's less confusing if 
extension schemas name the native element they're most similar to.

Does this take away your concern?

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com