<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">1) In most of the locally
stored SP metadata files in their <EntityDescriptor.... lines,
is the following XML Namespace:<br>
<br>
xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"<br>
<br>
...and in the body of the metadata itself can be seen the md:
prefex, such as:<br>
<br>
<md:EntityDescriptor...<br>
<md:SPSSODescriptor...<br>
<br>
...which makes senses, because of their defined namespace
(xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata").<br>
<br>
<br>
2) The remaining few of our locally stored SP metadata files
define this namespace as:<br>
<br>
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">...and in the body
of the metadata itself can be seen with out the md: prefex, such
as:</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<EntityDescriptor...<br>
<SPSSODescriptor...<br>
<br>
which makes senses, because of their defined namespace
(xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"). This is true for
the InCommon Federation metadata.<br>
<br>
<br>
I've done some InterWeb searching and still do not fully
understand the differences, advantages or disadvantages between
the two:<br>
<br>
xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"<br>
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"<br>
<br>
Did one replace the other as a more modern namespace? Is one
better than the other?<br>
<br>
thx,<br>
Don<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
D o n a l d L o h r
I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m s
J a m e s M a d i s o n U n i v e r s i t y
5 4 0 . 5 6 8 . 3 7 3 0
</pre>
</body>
</html>