On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 16:58 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:26 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > Our policy in the project has been to specify a schema for any xml file > > that we use, so that we have a formal validation mechanism (very useful > > in unit tests and run time configtests). It is possible for a schema to > > specify that any element may appear in a given context, but it is _not_ > > the default. Few of our schemas do so. > > True, I don't expect a schema to admit arbitrary extensions. > > > Whether or not our actual xml file parsers tolerate unknown elements > > varies - some do and some do not. Personally, I think that ignoring > > unknown elements is usually a bad idea - it means that the file appears > > to say one thing but is actually interpreted in some other way. > > But if we don't do that, what is the extension mechanism? Unless a file > is specifically designed to carry information from just one program to > just one other program -- and both programs are aware of each other's > behavior -- you need an extension mechanism that allows you to add > information to the file without rewriting every reader.
But that is exactly what the purpose of authrules.xml is - to carry one set of rules from one program (sipXconfig) to another. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
