Re: xsd, dtd and sample cpp and cpa

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Dale,

NamespaceUsed is still there, just not in the example.
I could add it back, but I wanted a "real" namespace
extension for the example and SAML (the markup language formerly
known as S2ML) isn't ripe yet.

As to relocating Packaging tree to be a sibling of 
DeliveryChannel, Transport, etc... that is fine by me.
It would mean (I gather) that Override would also
require an IDREF to packagingId, no?

One further question on Packaging is that I am 
still unclear as to how one specifies how a given
message "fits in" to a given packaging construct.

Specifically, if I have a message with two parts
(say the PO and a JPG "attachment") how does the Packaging
get applied?

Possibly, what would help me most would be for you (Dale) to
provide an example packaging tree that described a
SOAP Message with Attachment sans any S/MIME and
one that also incorporated S/MIME for the payload
where there are two payload items being encrypted.

Cheers,

Chris

"Moberg, Dale" wrote:
> 
> > Marty/All,
> >
> > Here are the xsd, dtd and sample CPP and CPA instance
> > documents for 0.93.
> >
> > I'd like Dale to review the Packaging bits in the examples
> > to make sure that I've used correct values and construct.
> >
> 
> Packaging bit review:
> 
> I would prefer that we have the Service Binding look like:
> 
> <ServiceBinding channelId="NO000212" packageId="N000211212"
> name="buyerService">
> ... elements...
> </ServiceBinding>
> 
> and then place the Packaging subtree out at the same level as Transport,
> DeliveryChannel,
> DocExchange.
> 
> You would then add an Id attribute, type ID, to the packaging element
> 
> <Packaging id="N000211212">
> ...elements...
> <Packaging>
> 
> This would then shift the cardinality of packaging per servicebinding to 1.
> (I apologize in advance to Marty for this, because I remember saying
> otherwise when packaging was included in the content model for the
> ServiceBinding element.)
> I think this is the way to go, given the proposed layout of 0.93.
> 
> For the Simple part content model, I would like to go back to the
> NamespaceUsed
> content model, which seems to have dropped out from under ebXMLBinding.
> (Where'd
> it go?) Anyway, that was how to tell whether xmldsig was being used for
> signatures
> on the payload XML part versus SMIME or something (which is gleaned off the
> packaging MIME content-types).