experimental namespace for openid.net

[Santosh Rajan]

I agree formalizing a POC is a bit of a stretch. I was looking at it the
other way around.
There is a general consensus on XRD, especially the work done here.
http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/xrd/
http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/xrd/ 
Add a simple signature and a host-meta as XRD and we really have a simple
XRD spec for which there already is a consensus. A POC will solidify this.
THats all that is required really.
The problem with XRI TC is that we have the "Camel is a Horse designed by a
committee" syndrome.


SitG Admin wrote:
> 
>>Why dont you implement proof of concept for XRD instead? We can then
>>formalize it. Why should we wait for XRI TC? After 11 years XRI TC cant
even
>>sign an XML document reliably.
> 
> A proof-of-concept is useful for showing that something is 
> *possible*, but if you try to formalize from  there it's more of a 
> "hotshot went off and did their own thing, then expects everyone else 
> to follow the leader". Google is working *with* the XRI TC, and my 
> understanding is that they want their work to be useful when we all 
> start looking for a protocol that a majority of the community can 
> agree to (with little enough effort that it doesn't become more 
> efficient to ditch the POC entirely and start over from scratch).
> 
> -Shade
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
> 
> 


-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/experimental-namespace-for-openid.net-tp24419697p24430201.html
Sent from the OpenID - Specs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.