On Freitag, 25. August 2017 15:22:20 CEST Dave Cridland wrote: > On 25 August 2017 at 15:03, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017, at 06:33, Dave Cridland wrote: > >> Comments are most welcome! > > > > The only thing I think needs to be changed right now, though it sounds > > minor, is that the response to select the SASL stream feature does not > > match the feature advertised. The server offers "<mechanisms/>" and the > > client responds with "<authenticate/>. While I know there's no > > requirement in 6120 that these match, it's an assumption that would be > > nice to be able to make in some future stream negotiation protocol (and, > > in my experience, simplifies writing stream feature APIs). Doing it now > > could help ensure future compatibility. The current SASL profile is, I > > think, the only widely used stream feature where the response does not > > match the advertised feature, so it would also be nice for consistencies > > sake if nothing else. > > So the problem with that is that the schemas for the feature and the > (same-named) top-level element wouldn't match. > > On the one hand, I don't care, but on the other, it makes it hard to > document.
Yes, that is not possible with XML Schemas. Aside from the documentation difficulties, it also may complicate implementations which map XML elements to objects; they would then need context about where the element occurs to pick the object to map it to. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
