Had to truncate that subject.
On 20-Feb-06, at 5:42 PM, Nick Ragouzis wrote:
PG1. Existing protocol SAMLv2 uses XML; we want non-XML;
handling HTML and working with name-value pairs is
about right
The driver here is simplicity for the Membersite.
XML's just lovely, and as simple as it started out it now has its own
complexities. For representation of attribute value assertions with
values of simple types it's more than is required. A name-value
pair is enough. The result is no requirement for XML handling at
the Membersite.
If a MS and HS wanted to exchange complex types, then yes
there needs to be some way of structuring that data, and XML is
one the obvious way to do that. There could be others. This
could easily be layered on top of the basic protocol. Perhaps by
extending an extensible property name and type mechanism.
(This is intended in dmd0 via the Property Capability mechanism,
although how property types are defined is left as an exercise
for the reader ;-)
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
