Erratum: Descriptions of QNames

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

I'm discovering that the descriptions of the operation of AuthorityKind 
and RespondWith are a bit misleading when it comes to QNames.  I'd like 
to suggest a change that I'm happy to consider editorial, but I will 
wait for the group's consensus on this before making the change.

Near lines 716 (all line references in this message are to core 1.0) for 
AuthorityKind, and 968 for RespondWith, the text gives an example of a 
QName in use and unfortunately implies (rather more strongly in the 
latter case) that the prefix must read "saml" when a natively defined 
construct is being referenced.  But the prefix of a namespaced value is 
never fixed, and we don't clarify that the appropriate namespace must 
have been defined in the scope of the relevant element where the QName 
appears.

It would be better to say something like this (underscores around new or 
changed material):

For AuthorityKind: "For example, an attribute authority would be 
identified by AuthorityKind="samlp:AttributeQuery", _where there is a 
namespace declaration in the scope of this attribute that binds the 
saml: prefix to the SAML protocol namespace_."

For RespondWith: "For example, a requestor that wishes to receive 
assertions containing only attribute statements _would_ [this was a 
lowercase "must"] specify 
<RespondWith>saml:AttributeStatement</RespondWith>, _where the prefix is 
bound to the SAML assertion namespace in a namespace declaration that is 
in the scope of this element_."

The QName description starting at line 1255 regarding StatusCode seems okay.

	Eve
-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com