Hi,
On 15 May 2019, at 14:08, Jos Westerbeke jos.westerbeke@eur.nl wrote:
I'm still abit undecided wrt optional data but I think all that should then come from the subject herself: We help enable that by making a stable but pseudonymous identifier available, the rest should be up the SP and the subject. So 5.b probably only differs in the identifier from 5.a.
Yes, I think so.
Another issue in my opinion with trust marks / entity categories and mixin it with optional attributes is the possibility of confusion.
E.g. the R&S category (as mentioned not applicable for publisher in its current version) release a fixed attribute bundle (no more and no less) with an optional element of affiliation.
To my view this can create confusion in implementations, as the tag itself defines what bundle has to be released and (thus) the required attributes in the request should be ignored, however (as an exception to the exception) the optional attribute of affiliation should be released. Though the idea behind makes sense, it is prone to implementation errors and thus usablitiy.
I noticed Peter S wrote the R&S FAQ, so i’m curious to his view on this in general (and possibly to the R&S example in particular)
-Maarten