[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- NameIDMappingResponse schema
I was going to suggest the same thing but was worried that folks would frown on the idea :) Really though, it may be the best option we have at this stage. > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:37 AM > To: Scott Cantor; 'Ari Kermaier'; 'SSTC (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- > NameIDMappingResponse schema > > Perhaps the best compromise is to publish a suggested "hack" to the schema > for folks who validate, one step short of normatively revving the schema. > > -Greg > > On 4/26/07 11:47 AM, "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> But still, it would be nice for validating implementations to not have > to > >> introduce hacks to work around this issue. I guess it's a pretty low > >> priority erratum, though. > > > > Obviously it's errata to record. However, I don't believe OASIS has a > > procedure to handle normative errata, only non-normative (or stuff you > can > > finesse to be non-normative). This doesn't really qualify. > > > > Going beyond that, there's the question of how to revise a schema, which > is > > borderline impossible. Short of revving the version attribute inside the > > schema element, I would be at a loss as to what to do. > > > > Lest this turn into a schema versioning thread, let's not and say we > did. > > Nobody's going to change anybody's mind about versions, hints, > namespaces vs. > > filenames, schema lookup, etc. > > > > -- Scott > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]