[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Recommendation: SAML elements should befullyqualified
At 02:13 PM 11/2/01 -0500, Rich Salz wrote: >I disagree; I don't think we should be writing a general "XML Style >guide" I would say it's not merely a style guide matter to specify that SAML elements must be qualified as being in the SAML namespace. Is that what you mean? I would agree that we *shouldn't* mandate namespace prefixes, since it's legitimate according to the XML Namespaces spec to default instead of prefixing. But requiring qualified markup seems fair -- we are defining the one true set of SAML namespaces, and if you don't use it in your message, you're arguably not using SAML. Maybe it should just go in the conformance section? Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC