[OpenID] host-meta and "acct:"

[Santosh Rajan]

Thanks Nat for pointing out the inaccuracies. But I don't see how it changes
the argument I am making.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091106/d0258945/attachment-0002.htm>