[most of example snipped]
> AttributeNamespace=<some URI indicating "X.500-style attribute type">
> AttributeName=<the name or OID of the attribute type>
> So, I'm inclined to think that attr-name and attr-namespace
> should stay separate.
I can see the reasoning here, because it's clearer to me what the
purpose of the attribute is. It seems like what the Namespace might be
most useful for is specifying a "taxonomy" for the Name, if that term
doesn't add more confusion. Maybe I'm just finally "getting it", in
which case I suggest using this as an example in the document.
X.500/LDAP might be one taxonomy, DCE/COM UUIDs might be another, and
URI- space might be a third (and the one Shib is likely to use).
I like this.
-- Scott
