[wsf-dev] lu:Status

[Scott Cantor]

Asa Hardcastle wrote:
> If I'm reading this properly, why was this decision made?

The unbounded cardinality seems a bit odd. SAML's status codes are nested, 
but only one at a time.

There's no material difference between nesting and using sequences of 
subcodes, and I've never really seen anybody nest them more than one layer deep.

It's all moot anyway...security software always sends one generic error code 
for everything, to prevent information leakage. All the arguments over 
status structure are kind of ironically stupid in light of that.

-- Scott