Dirk Balfanz wrote on 2009-09-04:
>> Keep in mind that we should optimize for the common case. If it's going
to
>> be common to put extensions inside Link, it may be simpler to just wrap
>> KeyInfo in something and solve the ambiguity that way.
>
> This does seem weird. Shouldn't the fact that we're using a different
> name space be enough of a hint that this is an extension?
If you want the gory details I can provide them, but no, it's not, not when
all your content is optional and you already have a non-wildcard child
element from another namespace explicitly defined in the schema.
The other possible fixes are:
- wrap the other child element into this namespace (KeyInfo in this case)
- make the other child element a formal extension (not listing it explicitly
in the schema)
I hadn't proposed the latter before, but it is a possible fix.
-- Scott
