Draft OpenID 2.x User Experience working group charter

[Vic Farazdagi]

On 06/02/2010 09:09 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> One would hope that the author of a TOS or any other document will use 
> terms appropriate for the audience.
>
> This is the specs list, and we (identity experts) all should know what 
> an RP is. I see zero value in renaming it for the spec.
Exactly the sentiment I feel. RP has been around for so much time, and I 
really doubt that anyone reading specs (and if my grandma would actually 
*want* to read the specs - I guess terminology would be ok with her) - 
would benefit from such a rename. While some extra confusion would 
follow. And am I the only one who doesn't see how 'partner website' is 
better than 'relying party' (which is not implying that OpenID is all 
about the web-sites for eg)?

If specs are not simple enough, I really doubt that it's because of some 
terms, and not out of some (unnecessary?) complications of underlying 
technology. So, I am really for some substantial changes, not simple 
re-branding/naming, with copy-pasting (not so good, imo) terms from 
other services.

Just my 0.00002 cents.

Thanks,

-- 
Victor Farazdagi

Blog      | http://www.phpmag.ru
FourSee   | http://www.4cinc.com
UMapper   | http://www.umapper.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100602/5c8d1e38/attachment.html>