> > If I'd been more aggesssive, I might have made the argument that
> > attributes and NameIDs should be treated more uniformly (as in fact
> > they are the
> same
> > thing), but I didn't push it.
>
> I realize it is _way_ too late but I wish you would have
> tried to push that argument.
Yeah, but that argument could be used about every piece of data
within the assertion (they are all attributes of one form or another
anyway). Where does one draw the line?
I think that SAML should, for all well defined data elements within
its area of control, define well defined locations for that data that
is not dependent upon some generic attribute element (e.g. having a
NameID element within Subject is the right thing to do - as opposed
to having a generic "NameID" attribute name that goes in a generic
AttributeStatement).
Conor
