Re: [security-services] Fragment identifiers (again)

[Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>]

> (This also raises an auxiliary question: Should SAML be
> xml:base-aware?


The W3C rules (for what it's worth) require every XML spec to be
xml:base-aware, even if they say "no special semantics."

I believe the intent is less that someone may define xml:base, but
rather that (as in xml dsig) you define an entity, &dsig, for the base,
so things like &disg;#x509data make sense.

SOAP, of course, does not allow DTD's, so no entitities, so there's no
gain.  And using xml:base there might be confusing, since some SOAP
toolkits might want to use it themselves.  (None that I know of, but
still...)
	/r$
-- 
Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
Encryption)
http://www.zolera.com