Did I miss the justification for re-inventing another xml flavor
of the ASN.1 Attribute rather than re-using someone else's (e.g.
DSML)? Seems like we're re-visiting a lot that others must have
considered.
Stephen.
Scott Cantor wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell
Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8. mailto:
Ireland http://www.baltimore.com
