[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] errata: misuse of strongly matches
On 10/23/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > > Of course, I knew that. ;-) But that has little to do with "strongly > > matches", right? > > Strong matching deals with identifier comparison as a part of it's > definition, so no, I don't think it has "little" to do with it, it's just a > subset. It's fine to just say the XML has to be Infoset equivalent, I guess. Right, I see what you're saying. You want to reuse the first requirement of strongly matches (lines 1949--1953) in two other places in the spec. Perhaps that's a good enough reason to define the equivalence of two name identifiers ("Two name identifiers are equivalent...") and to use *that* in the definition of strongly matches. Then you can invoke that definition elsewhere in the spec. The text on lines 1949--1953 satisfies the 80-20 rule, surely. There are some cases that are not covered, however. For instance, I don't think it makes sense to compare <BaseID> with <NameID>. Tom
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]