<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>+1 to the second one. I think it's more powerful on multilateral contracts, because it allows to define party to party obligations with a fine grain detail.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards<br><br>David Garcia</div><div><br>El 07/05/2010, a las 06:36, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>In the current draft, <obiligation> is an child element of <party>. However, when we think about the multi-party scenario, <div>unless we specify the target that the party is obliged to, it would have no meaning. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Thus, we would have two ways to implement it. </div><div><br></div><div>1. destination as an attribute. </div><div><br></div><div><obligation to="partyid"></div><div><br></div><div>2. Flatten obligations. </div>
<div><br></div><div><obligation from="partyaid" to="partybid"></div><div><br></div><div>Which do you think is better? </div><div><br></div><div>From the point of view of writing an application, the second option may be easier. </div>
<div><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/"><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a></a><br><a href="http://twitter.com/_nat_en"><a href="http://twitter.com/_nat_en">http://twitter.com/_nat_en</a></a><br>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Specs-cx mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Specs-cx@lists.openid.net">Specs-cx@lists.openid.net</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-cx">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-cx</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>