Hey John,<div>I was just kidding Shade about the "+1". You can give any no of +1's to Shade and I couldn't agree with you more. I know you guys are working hard on this,and I have great respect for the work you are doing.</div>
<div>It is just that I have a strong feeling that something has gone wrong somewhere. Things just don't look right to me. Especially when it comes to the "Subject" Element.</div><div>Looking a the whole thing positively, it is better that these kinds of arguments happen at this stage (draft stage) than after the 1.0 release. I am sure you will agree with me on this.</div>
<div>Thanks</div><div>Santosh</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:11 PM, John Bradley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">I could give Shade another +1.<div><br></div><div>I do think that he is clearly articulating the perspective of a majority of people who donate there time to create specs like XRD.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Some have said that our attempt to make XRDS too specific to the requirements of XRI caused it to fork into XRDS-Simple.</div><div><br></div><div>We are trying to learn from our past, along with the people who forked XRD for legitimate reasons to accommodate there use case. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We are attempting to produce a spec that can accommodate new things like WebFinger without causing a fork in XRD every time someone comes up with a new idea they want to try out.</div><div><br></div><div>
Profiles of XRD will live or die based on there community adoption.</div><div><br></div><div>Profiles of XRD are free to make Subject required. Profiles of XRD can define there own namespaces and extend XRD as they like.</div>
<div><br></div><div>You can make formal comments through the OASIS feedback process if you have a problem with that.</div><div><br></div><div>We will consider all feedback before XRD is finalized.</div><div><br></div><div>
Regards</div><div>John Bradley<font color="#888888"><br></font><div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div>On 2009-11-06, at 7:19 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
Hehe Shade, you are not going to get a "+1" for this one. Somebody did give you one for an earlier post!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM, SitG Admin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com" target="_blank">sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3) XRD with <Host> instead of <Subject><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Hypothetical, but plausible, scenario:<br>
<br>
A developer realizes they need to indicate something different from Subject, but that they may need Subject later on. To avoid that future conflict (where they would find themselves forced to declare ActualSubject instead of just using Subject!), they use Host instead. Communicating this to the 3rd parties they deal with, and getting them to modify their own code to interop, is up to the developer :)<div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4) Someone might come along and decide lets have <Title> instead of <Subject><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
They won't get to make a unilateral decision, though. If they can't present compelling reasons why anyone ought to switch from using Subject to using Title, they'll probably be ignored ;)<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
5) Anyone can have anything else instead of <Subject><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If they want to, sure. How effective it is may depend on how many others they can get to accomodate their approach - and it may depend on how many others *don't*. Remember that security through obscurity actually *works*, in some cases; if they have an undocumented, hexadeximal-encoded, (weakly) encrypted Subject line labeled as another field, 99% of 3rd parties (having no reason to even *attempt* to figure out what Subject line IF ANY there is) will not pursue that any further.<div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Is this your idea of future compatibility?<br>
Why is it so difficult for people to see that this whole thing is leading to a mess?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
We're blinded by this whole idea of "majority consensus".<br>
<br>
When you think that the majority's interests are in the actual *usefulness* of each spec, as defined by how many 3rd parties can be persuaded to practice the same methods (it's all about interoperability), your self-interest becomes self-limiting (it's all about enlightened self-interest): you don't want to exert too MUCH influence, making something perfect for YOU, because then it'll be too much trouble for everyone *else* (the Way of D'Shai is all about *balance*). The more accepting you can be of those who are different from you (it's all about tolerance), the more likely you are to receive cooperation instead of competition (Microsoft called this "Embrace and Extend"; pay it forward).<br>
<br>
-Shade<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br></div></div><div class="im">
_______________________________________________<br>general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">general@lists.openid.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>
</div>