RE: [security-services] A "final" proposal on status codes

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

The changes made were to make all types into named types, to move certain
data types into attributes and to make the element names unambiguous at the
top level (hence adding Status to everything).

It does not matter much what the coding stye is, but making it consistent
across the spec makes a big difference.

I realised after the post that you were referring to the W3C XMLP list. For
a moment I thought that you were referring to one of the SAML sublists, in
the past we had a lot of them with some confusion at times. 

	Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; 'SAML'
> Subject: RE: [security-services] A "final" proposal on status codes
> 
> 
> > I have had to re-edit the schema somewhat to conform to the 
> > coding style previously agreed.
> 
> Presumably before I got involved?
> 
> > Is the recursive inclusion in Substatus code type 
> > intentional?? I have assumed not since if it were intentional 
> > I would have expected notice to be drawn to it.
> 
> The schema you used would correspond roughly to the SOAP proposal that
> uses an array of codes, with attributes used for the status values. I
> proposed some variant of this at one point.
> 
> This is why I felt we needed some discussion, so that there would be
> consensus on the approach chosen from an XML standpoint, but I guess I
> didn't call that out well enough.
> 
> -- Scott
>

Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf