Hi, I was asked to review draft-ietf-regext-org for the XML namespace and schema registries. Everything looks fine, except that I think we got crossed wires somewhere in the back and forth.
The comment I made was that certain types use xs:enumeration with a set of values. Here I refer to epp-org:statusType, epp-org:roleStatusType, and epp-org:contactAttrType. The question was whether these types were intended to be extended, or whether the working group was confident that the list was exhaustive. Based on the content of the lists, it doesn't appear possible that the lists could be exhaustive, but maybe there are constraints in this domain that ensure this is the case. The current structure of the schema would prevent these from ever being extended [1]. The comment was then a question: does the working group believe that the set of values for these When I asked, the response was about epp-org:roleType/type. That confused me. That element is defined as xs:token and has a registry associated with it, so it's clear that this is extensible. I'm asking about these enumerated types. And a bonus question, which I would not have commented on as the designated expert, but since I'm writing, I'll ask for my own gratification: Why define yet another addressing format? Just in the IETF we have a ton of those already. RFC 5139 (of which I'm an author, for my sins), RFC 6351 (XML vCard), just to start with. --Martin [1] I guess you could say that the schema isn't normative, and it's just illustrative. But that is contrary to common practice and would require a LOT more text for the document to make any sense, because you would end up relying much more on the text having a normative description of elements. So I'm assuming here that implementations will be allowed to reject inputs that fail schema validation. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
