OpenSAML user discussion

["Scott Cantor" <>]

> Theoretically, we should probably block the use of that object with SAML
> 1.0 objects, though. It will just lead to errors (per the other note).

Actually, what I did (and I just broke in my last check-in but will undo)
was to use a getXMLID() function on the object and if that came back empty,
I do a whole doc sign with URI="". That's about all that you can make work
for SAML 1.0, and it does at least handle POST profile signing, which is
about all you can do for 1.0 anyway.

That way the SAML ContentReference object does a semi-correct thing for 1.0
but doesn't produce bogus ID-referenced signatures.

-- Scott