Prasad Yendluri wrote: > > One more thing. The spec clearly states that “an assertion with > optional=true” is syntactic simplification to having two policy > alternatives, one with and one without the assertion. > Disregarding the semantics for a moment, I've never been entirely clear what the benefit is of "normalizing" an optional assertion into two policy alternatives? As far as I can see, the same goal could be achieved by these rules: - The intersection of an assertion with optional=true with the same assertion with optional=false yields the assertion with optional=false. - The merge of an assertion with optional=true with the same assertion with optional=false yields the assertion with optional=true. Fabian -- Fabian Ritzmann Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stella Business Park Phone +358-9-525 562 96 Lars Sonckin kaari 12 Fax +358-9-525 562 52 02600 Espoo Email Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM FinlandReceived on Friday, 29 September 2006 09:16:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT