Hal,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:42 PM
> To: Sinnema, Remon;
> Subject: RE: [xacml] [xacml-users] REST Profile - PDP Issues
>
> > > (Minor point: it is customary to use a namespace qualified name and
> > > define the namespace tags near the beginning of the doc.
> > > Specifications frequently reference several XML schemas and they
> > could
> > > contain the same element names. In particular, common words like
> > > Request and Response are likely to appear in many schemas.)
> >
> > Not all formats have the concept of namespaces (e.g. JSON), so in the
> > interest of being neutral in terms of representation, I felt I
> couldn't
> > use namespaces here. I used wording like "XACML request" to address
> > this issue. Does that sound reasonable?
>
> I was thinking primarily of the examples here. <Request> is potentially
> ambiguous. <xs:request> with a suitable definition of xs, is not.
The example reads:
<Request xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:core:schema:wd-17">
<!-- XACML request -->
</Request>
I do use a (default) namespace here, so I don't see how <Request> can be ambiguous.
Thanks,
Ray
