RE: [security-services] Additional comments on core-02

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> Come to think of it, I suppose we could say that the "tighter 
> constraint" is always in force, but then I'd worry that the meaning of 
> "tighter" requires interpretation...

I guess what I had in mind was something like "Unless otherwise specified,
the schema takes precedence in describing the syntax of SAML." and then go
through and highlight any places we impose additional constraints (which I'm
willing to help with) by some kind of short boilerplate signal.

Maybe I'm making too much of it, but once the text becomes the spec, I fear
the schema becomes non-normative whether we intend it or not.

-- Scott