Editorial fix to -core re: <StatusCode> and Value attribute references

We're not consistent in the way we refer to "StatusCode"
and "StatusCode Value" in the text. In the V1.0 -core spec:

 

o       
line 1089 says " ...top-level StatusCode
value of Responder and a second-level code value".  "code"
should be made more consistent. (no bolding or quoting of StatusCode or
Responder)

o       
Line 1090 uses "ResourceNotRecognized"
(no bolding or quoting)

o       
Line 1218 refers to the "<StatusCode>
element"

o       
Line 1226 uses "StatusCode Value" where StatusCode is bolded and Value
is not.

o       
Line 1260 uses "StatusCode element's
Value attribute" (no bolding)

o       
Line 1262 uses "<StatusCode> element and
its StatusCodeType complex type"
where "StatusCodeType" is bolded

o       
Line 1301 uses "a <samlp:StatusCode> with
value 'Success'" (where Success is quoted)

o       
Line 1344 uses "StatusCode value of VersionMismatch"
(no bolding)

 

I didn't check -bindings, but I'd suspect
there may be similar problems there.

 

We should use a consistent formatting and reference style
when referring to the element <StatusCode> and the QNames associated with
the Value attribute.

 

Rob Philpott 

RSA Security Inc. 

The Most Trusted Name in e-Security 

Tel: 781-515-7115 

Mobile: 617-510-0893 

Fax: 781-515-7020 

mailto: