Hi, On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> wrote: > from a pure node type point of view it was legal to create > a node named "rep:policy" underneath a nt:unstructured node. > similarly an nt:unstructured node would allow you to create > a child of type "rep:ACL"...
See the suggestion about reserved namespaces from my previous post. I'd guard against such cases by only allowing content in a reserved namespace like "rep/internal" to occur when covered by a named item definition in a built-in node type. BR, Jukka Zitting
