On 1/2/25 12:52, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 02/Jan/2025 00:15:19 +0100 Daniel K. wrote: >> <xs:complexType name="ReportMetadataType"> >> - <xs:all> >> + <xs:sequence> > > 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.
Thanks, I somehow bungled the arguments to interdiff, so I quoted the reverse of the actual change that was from "sequence" => "all". I agree with the rationale given by Matt. "error" was later put back, but with maxOccurs="1" which is compatible with "all". >> <xs:complexType name="RowType"> >> - <xs:sequence> >> + <xs:all> > > This has always been unordered, AFAIK. Yes, but it is now "sequence". The same argument holds for RowType (no unbounded elements), and I will add a commit changing it back to "all", the way ut was in RFC7489. > 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? As long as we loosen the restrictions, I don't think it matters. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
