[OpenID] host-meta and "acct:"

[Nat Sakimura]

Inline:

Santosh Rajan wrote:
> 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>
That is inacculate. In fact, it will be something like <hm:Host> rather 
than <Host>
where hm is the XML ns for host-meta.
> 4) Someone might come along and decide lets have <Title> instead of 
> <Subject>
Yes, but it will be like <ab:Title> where ab is the XML name space.
> 5) Anyone can have anything else instead of <Subject>
That's the nature of the extensibility of XML.
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>