Re: [security-services] errata: misuse of strongly matches

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

On 10/23/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
> > Of course, I knew that. ;-)  But that has little to do with "strongly
> > matches", right?
>
> Strong matching deals with identifier comparison as a part of it's
> definition, so no, I don't think it has "little" to do with it, it's just a
> subset. It's fine to just say the XML has to be Infoset equivalent, I guess.

Right, I see what you're saying.  You want to reuse the first
requirement of strongly matches (lines 1949--1953) in two other places
in the spec.  Perhaps that's a good enough reason to define the
equivalence of two name identifiers ("Two name identifiers are
equivalent...") and to use *that* in the definition of strongly
matches.  Then you can invoke that definition elsewhere in the spec.

The text on lines 1949--1953 satisfies the 80-20 rule, surely.  There
are some cases that are not covered, however.  For instance, I don't
think it makes sense to compare <BaseID> with <NameID>.

Tom