On Thu 02/Jan/2025 00:15:19 +0100 Daniel K. wrote:
On 12/30/24 19:40, Daniel K. wrote:
Doing this work I have noted a few inconsistencies which I'll raise when
I have pondered a little bit more, and written something intelligible
about it.
Alessandro,
in commit: 7a993a2 xsd and xml examples
The following is hiding among the white-space changes:
<xs:complexType name="ReportMetadataType">
- <xs:all>
+ <xs:sequence>
restricting the contents to now be in the specified order, and
That change was by Matt Wander in 2021 on gdoc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fh18iswRu4WJxnN6LBPIpVBncwhfJODOQxoeYH__Z-Q/
It looked like a harmless simplification, given the nature of those fields.
<xs:complexType name="RowType">
- <xs:sequence>
+ <xs:all>
relaxing the requirements for a previously ordered list of elements.
This has always been unordered, AFAIK.
Do you remember if this was deliberate, and if so, what the rationale was?
I'd like to have both be of the "<xs:all>" type, as I see no reason the
report_metadata contents are required to be in a fixed order.
The only reason I can think of is to ease poor parsers. As they've always been
<xs:all>, should we check if report generators actually follow the order given
in the schema?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
