Re: [wss] Critical ISSUE (RE: [wss-comment] Enumerations of QNamefault codes)

It helps human reader because they can see, in the schema, what some
pre-defined QNAME's are.

> allows all other QNames, and still makes the wsse: prefix a unique
> first-class citizen.

Only if the receiver treats the incoming data as a string, and not as a
qname.  Since the specs say it's a qname, I think the concern of making
some strings "special" is more theoretical than practical, and more than
outweighed by having a technique to (er) enumerate any architected QNAME
values.

Personally, I consider it yet another arugment against qname's instead of
uri's, but it's too late to fix soap.
	/r$

 --
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html