RE: [security-services] A15 & A23: Attribute Values

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

I can definitely buy this logic.

At 05:03 PM 12/5/01 -0400, Chris McLaren wrote:
> > - We have the opportunity to *require* that <AttributeValue>
> > be supplied
> > with an xsi:type.  Do we want to do that, so that attribute
> > values are as
> > processable as possible, or should it be enough if someone
> > wants to get
> > this information out of the attribute namespace?
>
>I would suggest not requiring it. A couple of reasons:
>
>* the data may not be defined in terms of an XML schema (sure, we could
>require you to always type it as a string, or something, but that seems
>hack-y)
>
>* the data may include elements of types from multiple schemas under the
><saml:AttributeValue>. For example, I might have a value made up by
>inserting two elements as children of <AttributeValue>, with each element of
>a type from a different schema. While I could declare a third new schema
>defining a type for this composition I shouldn't NEED to.
>
>* The field may contain well formed XML that doesn't have an associated
>schema
>
> > - If we don't require xsi:type, then I think it would be nice
> > to have a
> > non-normative note explaining briefly how this could be done.
> >  Doesn't have
> > to be a SHOULD, to my mind, but doesn't have to throw people
> > over to a
> > whole other unnecessary document either.
>
>However we decide to do this is fine with me. I only note that we have often
>mentioned the principal that non-normative text should be kept to a minimum
>in the core--and this would definitely by usage advice, not normative text.
>
>C.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com