On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 19:56, Gould, James wrote: > 4. I don’t recommend directly referencing the > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 elements, since it adds a direct > dependency to inclusion of the contact XML schema and namespace for a > subset of the elements that are really specific to the validate mapping. > I would prefer for the validate XML schema to stand on its own by only > referring to epp and eppcom, with no cross references to contact. This > would mean copying and pasting elements directly from the contact XML > schema into the validate XML schema, which is an inconvenient, but makes > it easier to implement.
I am sure that not all elements of epp/eppcom namespaces are used either so under symmetry and consistency I would find more logical that all schemas are treated the same, either all referenced, or all copied (for the parts needed). And I see no problems in referencing the contact-1.0 one. Using epp/eppcom as references already make the schema dependent on other resources and not "standing on its own". I am not sure this has a huge consequence on implementations, especially if taking into account multiple ways to implement things (and especially doing validation or not). -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
