OpenSAML user discussion

["Scott Cantor" <>]

> But what do you do for example in the case where the AttributeValue isn't
> bare,  e.g. it has an xsi:type="xs:string".  Do you use some provider that
> represents the xs:string type, or do you still use the ElementProxy type
> approach?  If the former, I would imagine you still have the issue I
alluded
> to in the note I just sent out.

It's the latter. I use an element proxy because nothing's defined to
override it, because I see that as syntactic sugar I can add any time.

But I didn't realize that it was legal to combine xsi:type and xsi:nil like
that. The use case in SAML was just <AttributeValue xsi:nil="true"/>. It
never struck me what the implications were.

I don't see any real option but to move it from an implementation point of
view, but I don't much like it.

-- Scott