> Out of the three choices, I agree that the last one is the
> most attractive. The only thing that strikes me as odd is
> that this allows for different values of the same attribute
> to have different syntaxes. Is that a useful level of complexity?
I noticed that myself, but I concluded that since it's up to the
attribute's "definer/owner" to design its syntax, it's a complexity that
can be avoided (if desired) by simply not doing it.
There's no way for a SAML application that consumes attributes to assume
anything about the syntax of attributes anyway.
Another way to look at it is in Java terms, where collections can
contain any kind of Object.
-- Scott
