[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [saml-dev] status code value
> Since we say "MUST be prefixed", I interpret this to mean that it's not > acceptable to use a non-prefixed (but implicitly qualified) value. So I > think Scott's first example wouldn't be correct. Comments from anyone > on this? Do we need to broaden the language in a future version? I wrote that text, and the language is actually "MUST be prefixed appropriately", by which I meant it has to be properly namespace qualified like any QName, not that it had to be prefixed. Sorry if it wasn't clear. In practice, I don't think people rely on default namespaces for QName values too often anyway, it's just confusing. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC