Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 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
|
