[Shib-Users] attribute definition for date of birth

[Chad La Joie]

Ah, so the Schema spec says that dateTime type is "inspired by" ISO8601
whereas the duration type *is* an ISO8601 duration.

Oh, I love specs...

On 12/5/11 7:20 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> On 12/5/11 7:03 PM, "Chad La Joie" <lajoie at shibboleth.net> wrote:
> 
>> Yep, looks like dashes are optional (didn't realize that).  I believe
>> then that means the LDAP general time syntax representing strictly a
>> date would be the same as the ISO8601 format without a time or optional
>> dashes.
> 
> I'm not seeing language in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/ that suggests this. If
> it were true, it would be something you'd want to avoid in any scenario
> where signing were involved, because the canonical form of the data type
> would almost certainly have the dashes, and any time you have lexical !=
> canonical, the chance for failure goes up. This is normally a problem with
> base64 data, but it's not the only case like that.
> 
> (Of course, XML can carry anything, it's the schema type of date,
> dateTime, etc. where this format is specified.)
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net