Re: [security-services] Erratum: Descriptions of QNames

Re saml:/samlp:/, oops...  Well, it's a good sign that two people are in 
favor so far.  I had forgotten that we have the section in front that 
explains that saml: and samlp: are the canonical prefixes for those 
namespaces, but given that QNames in content are still XML oddities, I 
feel better having this extra bit of explanation.  (I got the general 
form of it from looking at the XSLT spec.)  Hopefully we can decide this 
quickly on the next call.

	Eve

Irving Reid wrote:
>>From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:]
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
>>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_."
> 
> 
> the samlp: prefix, but otherwise OK.
> 
> 
>>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_."
> 
> 
> I think I put together the original text for these; I like the proposed
> clarification.
> 
>  - irving -
-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com