PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)

Pete Rowley prowley at redhat.com
Thu Oct 19 21:10:36 UTC 2006


Jonathan Daugherty wrote:
> # This is true only if you never consider use cases for your protocol
> # which cover usability. That would be unwise. I don't think I know of
> # a protocol that was developed without regard to how it would be
> # used.
>
> I have said before that the form element name proposal is a good one,
> and I don't think anyone else disagrees that having a consistent name
> would be good for usability.  Regardless, this design choice is out of
> scope for the OpenID 2.0 authentication spec.
>
>   
A procedural point: If it is out of scope why is 8.1, and in particular 
that line, in the spec? I submit that it evidently _is_ in scope since 
it is there.


-- 
Pete

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20061019/0e3b64d8/attachment-0002.bin>


More information about the specs mailing list