So what's the motivation? To make it sound more like a LDAP?

Can there be anything that would not be validated with OSSC?

Does OSSC cover any textual and binary values?

If you think it's a catch all which is more appropriate we can do it, why not.

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 13:13, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:

we have a AcceptAllSyntaxChecker which is associated to any syntax without any defined syntaxChecker. It's a catch all. I suggest we remove it and replace it with OctetStringSyntaxChecker, which is also a catch all.

thoughts ?

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

Ersin ER