Results of today's ETSI's 'Review comments on draft OASIS DSS V2 spec'

Hi, I second your proposal to accept the ordering/sequence of xml elements.
XML is not json and vice versa :-) so I expect that xml developers will benefit from a more straightforward structure...
Regards Ernst Jan Andreas Kuehne schreef:
> Hi again, >
> I would like to propose a solution for the schema glitch.
> The cause for all the trouble is my attempt to introduce independence of
> element ordering (as it is build-in in JSON) in the XML schema, too.
> Tried to solve this using choices wrapped in sequences. But this results
> in additional problems (like the ones Juan Carlos pointed out or
> alternatively in the loss of cardinality restrictions). Recommendations
> on this 'non-ordering' topic involve not applicable elements (xs:all) or
> madly complex constructs using additional groups based on their cardinality. >
> So I would to tend to accept the ordering of sequences in XML schema and
> stop trying to bend it until it somehow mimics JSON schema. >
> What's your opinion in this? >
> Greetings, >
> Andreas > >> Hi all, >> >> >> I have to admit that Juan Carlos pointed out two severe cardinality >> flaws in the XML schema regarding InputDocuments and OptionalIn- and >> -OutputTypes. I'm a bit upset that my test cases didn't detect these >> problem upfront and need to track down this issue. >> >> Other comments were also quite interesting but not of that severity. >> But as far as I unde3rstood the process we need to fix the problem and >> start the review period again. >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> Andreas >> >> >