hi Eve,
If this is still open for discussion, I would like to add $0.02 ...
"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
>
> Okay, here's my (biased?) assessment what I've heard so far.
>
> Reference -> Ref yes
> Condition -> (null) yes
> Confirmation -> Conf maybe
> Attribute -> Attr maybe
Attribute -> Attr
[rr] Yes: I have seen this abbreviation in the past. It seems
straightforward.
> NameQualifier -> Qualifier maybe
> Assertion -> Assn no?
Assertion -> Assn
[rr] No: It could be confused with "association", as someone noted
earlier.
> Service -> Svc no
[rr] Yes?: I have seen this abbreviation in the past. I missed the
explanation of why someone thought this abbreviation is a bad idea?
> Qualifier -> Qual no
> Statement -> Stmt no
[rr] Yes?: I have also seen this abbreviation used this way in the
past. I think this got an "F" on your original list, but I do not know
why.
> Reauthenticate -> Reauthn no
>
> If people can weigh in so that we get a clearer idea of the leanings, it
> sounds like Scott can implement, in proposed form, the ones with the
> most support.
>
> To continue my weigh-in here, I don't think NameQualifier -> Qualifier
> is a good idea because the parent element is not Name, but rather BaseID.
>
> Eve
> --
> Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441
> Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
~ Rick Randall
Booz Allen Hamilton
