[WRAP] Name space and prefix - OpenID Harmonization

[Dick Hardt]

On 2010-02-25, at 4:11 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

> Hi
> 
> This may have come up earlier but ... 
> 
> I think Wrap should have a namespace / versioning syntax. 
> Invariably, it will evolve, and will require version number etc. so, it seems better to me to have one from the beginning. 
> 
> e.g., 
> 
> wrap_ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0
> wrap_client_id ... 

Versioning was discussed. I don't recall the details, but it was decided it did not add value.


> 
> I would go further. Why is underscore '_' is used for the delimiter? 
> If we make it dot '.', it will improve the future compatibility with OpenID. 

Or OpenID could change to using '_'  :-)


> So, we could do something like: 
> 
> openid.ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0
> openid.client_id ...
> 
> The same applies for OpenID. For an unknown reason, though OpenID has namespace so that we write: 
> 
> openid.ns= http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0
> 
> the prefix "openid" is fixed. We should be able to change it like: 
> 
> wrap.ns=http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0
> 
> Now, the third point. 
> 
> Could we not try to harmonize the variable names between the two specs? 
> 
> OpenID is in use widely, so it is kind of hard to change it,

Interesting assumption. At IIW we discussed OpenID v Next that was NOT backward compatible. It would seem that there is an oppportunity to make changes to OpenID as well as OAuth WRAP.

> so I would request Wrap community to come closer. 

WRAP followed OAuth, which has much broader adoption from what I know than OpenID

> 
> IMHO, we should try to harmonize/unite instead of fragmenting. 

Agreed, but perhaps the changes could happen in OpenID or a combination?

-- Dick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100225/5e2c2a28/attachment.htm>