On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Eve L. Maler wrote:
> If everyone else is convinced, I guess I am. *If* everyone else
> convinced? Could an HTTP binding be made dead-simple enough to
> "happen" to carry a SAML request or response? If so, why didn't we
> include it in SAML 1.0?
We took a vote a few months back on whether the HTTP or SOAP binding
should be mandatory-to-implement, and SOAP won (I have no idea why).
Someone could have championed a HTTP binding for inclusion in the spec,
but no one did.
- RL "Bob"
