On 2/8/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">rob</b> <<a href="mailto:robyates70@gmail.com">robyates70@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div>> [OpenID] 2.0 ... is not as intuitive as either of its<br>> predecessors and I wonder whether it can still coin
<br>> the phrase "lightweight".<br><br>When and why is "lightness" useful? If no one adopts a "lighter" spec has anything useful been accomplished? Is it useful in non-academic contexts to build or define systems that are easier to understand but that will never be used?
<br><br>I think that the appropriate measure of "lightness" is not, in fact, some pseudo-objective measure such as page count or measure of technical complexity. Rather, the question should be whether or not a "more lightweight" system would be provide substantially the same capabilities with substantially the same or greater likelihood of acceptance. (The "lightness" measure is one that is very context dependent.) Of course, the second qualifier (probability of acceptance) is the important one....
<br><br>The reality is that it appears that OpenID 2.0 has a very high likelihood of being widely accepted. This is because a number of otherwise warring camps have consolidated on this one common set of capabilities, syntax, etc. Unless someone is very creative, it is unlikely that simplifications to the base spec will accomplish much other than the disaffection of one or another of the members of this "union" of interests. Oddly, at this point, it may be that the likelihood of acceptance, and thus utility, may be best improved by *increasing* the complexity of the spec --
i.e. by incorporating solutions to the primary concerns of even more interest groups. The current CardSpace/OpenID devil-dancing may be a case on point...<br><br></div>bob wyman<br><br>