11 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.xacmlRE: [xacml] [xacml-users] REST Profil...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Hal Lockhart | May 16, 2012 2:25 pm | |
| remo...@emc.com | May 16, 2012 3:01 pm | |
| Hal Lockhart | May 17, 2012 7:41 am | |
| Danny Thorpe | May 17, 2012 11:18 am | |
| remo...@emc.com | May 17, 2012 2:09 pm | |
| Danny Thorpe | May 17, 2012 2:13 pm | |
| remo...@emc.com | May 17, 2012 2:21 pm | |
| remo...@emc.com | May 18, 2012 6:27 am | |
| Danny Thorpe | May 18, 2012 9:30 am | |
| Hal Lockhart | May 29, 2012 12:25 pm | |
| Hal Lockhart | May 29, 2012 1:01 pm |
| Subject: | RE: [xacml] [xacml-users] REST Profile - PDP Issues | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | remo...@emc.com (remo...@emc.com) | |
| Date: | May 17, 2012 2:21:56 pm | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.xacml | |
Hal,
-----Original Message----- From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal....@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:42 PM To: Sinnema, Remon; xac...@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