[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Editorial fix to -core re: <StatusCode> and Value attribute references
We're not consistent in the way we refer to "StatusCode" and "StatusCode Value" in the text. In the V1.0 -core spec:
o line 1089 says " ...top-level StatusCode value of Responder and a second-level code value". "code" should be made more consistent. (no bolding or quoting of StatusCode or Responder) o Line 1090 uses "ResourceNotRecognized" (no bolding or quoting) o Line 1218 refers to the "<StatusCode> element" o Line 1226 uses "StatusCode Value" where StatusCode is bolded and Value is not. o Line 1260 uses "StatusCode element's Value attribute" (no bolding) o Line 1262 uses "<StatusCode> element and its StatusCodeType complex type" where "StatusCodeType" is bolded o Line 1301 uses "a <samlp:StatusCode> with value 'Success'" (where Success is quoted) o Line 1344 uses "StatusCode value of VersionMismatch" (no bolding)
I didn't check -bindings, but I'd suspect there may be similar problems there.
We should use a consistent formatting and reference style when referring to the element <StatusCode> and the QNames associated with the Value attribute.
Rob Philpott
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]