On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM, John Bradley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com">jbradley@mac.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Some may ask if we add artifact binding, signatures and encryption are we not reinventing SAML Web SSO, or something of equal complexity?</blockquote></div><br>I would like to know more about this, but my instinct is always to say "NO" for as long as possible when any new feature will a) introduce complexity and b) stifle or impair potential adoption.<div>
<br></div><div>That we've come as far as we have is a feat; maintaining that momentum is critical — and that means making good on the promise of what OpenID offers *today* — and only extending it with real world examples where people are implementing kludges (en masse) to serve a common need.<br clear="all">
<br></div><div>Chris</div><div><br>-- <br>Chris Messina<br>Open Web Advocate<br><br>Personal: <a href="http://factoryjoe.com">http://factoryjoe.com</a><br>Follow me on Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/chrismessina">http://twitter.com/chrismessina</a><br>
<br>Citizen Agency: <a href="http://citizenagency.com">http://citizenagency.com</a><br>Diso Project: <a href="http://diso-project.org">http://diso-project.org</a><br>OpenID Foundation: <a href="http://openid.net">http://openid.net</a><br>
<br>This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>
</div>