Shibboleth Developers

At 11:33 AM -0400 4/28/04, Scott Cantor wrote:
>  > I'm just suggesting that the examples  should a) NOT demonstrate all
> >  the flexibility, and b) lead people toward good practice......
>
> Unfortunately, I can't really do that with the old metadata files, people
> are assuming they'll be where they have been. So I thought it was confusing
> either way, and I just chose consistency in naming.

a sign of success -- having to worry about the legacy environment?  (-:

you're absolutely right  about the old files.

> Should I just name them IQ-sites.xml and IQ-trust.xml? I don't expect the
> trust format to be changing for a while, and the new metadata won't be
> called "sites.xml" anyway. Having the version in them might be confusing
> itself if they don't change for 1.3.

yea, if you think the schema  will remain stable thru the 1.x 
releases.... then your suggested names  seem fine to me.