Hi Juergen,
Thanks for this reply. My comments/clarifications are inline, below.
On 07/28/2008 03:18 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:09:35PM -0400, Mark Ellison wrote:
- In section 5.2, "OctetString", second paragraph says "each octet is
encoded as two hexadecimal digits" and the third bullet indicates the
"maxLength" restriction of 65535 octets. However, the xs:simpleType
"OctetString" definition in section 4 indicates an xs:maxLength
value="65535". If the intent is to represent 65535 octets then the
xs:maxLength value should be twice this number, "131070".
I think the maxLength restriction is counted in the number of decoded
bytes not the number of bytes needed for the encoding. Please check
section 4.3.3 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>. (I did run into
this before; perhaps it is worth adding a comment so that we do not
run into this question again - or worse someone "fixes" this later
on.)
Good- section 4.3.3 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/> is
helpful, I see now how I became confused by the current text in the
second paragraph. I agree with your suggestion to add some
text/comment to clarify.
- [more of a personal wish] In section 5.5, "ObjectIdentifier", I
realize the text is written to be faithful to the definition of the SMI
OBJECT IDENTIFIER. In this regard, it is probably not appropriate to
place support for "OID fragments" here. I find I use a lot of OID
fragments (1 or more subids that do not have the initial 2 subid
restrictions) to represent instance components for a set of related
OBJECT-TYPE OIDs. Possibly there is a place, either in this memo, or in
another related memo to support the notion of an OID fragment? I
suppose I could use the ObjectIdentifier "as is" by prepending any
fragment with 1.1, but I regard this as a programmatic contortion with
undesirable overhead.
Your ObjectIdentifierFragment simply is not an ObjectIdentifier...
Yes I agree with this- hopefully there is a proper place for defining
an ObjectIdentifierFragment...
/js
Thanks,
Mark
|