[OpenID] host-meta and "acct:"

[Santosh Rajan]

Ok, let me get this straight. We are going to have

1) XRD's with <Subject>
2) XRD's without <Subject>
3) XRD with <Host> instead of <Subject>
4) Someone might come along and decide lets have <Title> instead of
<Subject>
5) Anyone can have anything else instead of <Subject>

Is this your idea of future compatibility?
Why is it so difficult for people to see that this whole thing is leading to
a mess?


On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM, SitG Admin <sysadmin at shadowsinthegarden.com
> wrote:

> I think I have a better understanding now. I will try to explain it:
>
>
>  Are you suggesting that you guys know something which those guys didn't
>> know?
>>
>
> No. But . . . forward-compatibility.
>
> History has shown us that we (and others) will continue to have ideas that
> are not covered by existing specs, requiring us to either come up with new
> specs or modify existing specs. We don't need to specifically anticipate
> these ideas, we don't need to know all the details, to foresee that they
> (probably) *will* be pursued. If, at that time, the XRD spec does not
> support them, their development will be slowed down, and their implementors
> may go make a rival spec to accomplish/support what *they* are after, faster
> than XRD can be modified to allow for it. This splinters what would
> otherwise be a single XRD community into several similar groups, and divides
> the attention of those whose interest is rooted more in the compatible ideas
> than steadfast loyalty to particular specs.
>
> By putting greater flexibility into the XRD spec than any specific *need*
> has been shown for, compatibility with future ideas is made more likely.
> Today the Subject may be necessary for 99% of use cases; that percentage may
> change again in future, though.
>
> -Shade
>



-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091106/44b5253e/attachment-0001.htm>